CALIFORNIA STATE Ul'HV.ERSITY, NORTHRIDGE

CHILDREN,, OF THE GODDESS: A Critical Examination of

Feminist vvri tings on the

Matriarchy.

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for ·the degree of tllaster of l'~rts in

An ·thropo logy

by

Lynne Bean //

June, 1976 The Thesis of Lynne Bean is approved:

California S-tate University, Northridge

ii l ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS l This paper is the result of the invaluable I I assistance and support of many individuals. I wish to I thank, particularly, Dr. Evalyn Michaelson, teacher and

friend, for her patience and editorial advice. I am I also extremely grateful to Dr. Liucija Baskauskas and ! Dr. Jacqueline Lindenfeld for their useful and pertinent

criticisms. Finally, to Shirley Anderson, Eliot Bean,

r.inda and Bill Waters and Rudy Schneider, whose belief t.hat it could be done made this work possible, thank you. I

1 i I i i I I I l i l I i I ~ i ! l i I ! I l I i ______Ij ~--~·---- ·-····--·---··---··------~·--·-.-~----·------··------~-

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. 1''-CKNOWLEDGEMENTS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• iii

1 2 .. ABS'IRACT •..... (J •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• v

3. INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • 1

4. MYTH AS HISTORY:

FOUNDATIONS OF' THE r'lATRIARCHY •••••••••••••••••••••• 9

5.. MY'I'I-I AND SYMBOL:

A JUNGIAN VIEV\f OF WOMEN AND ~'lATRIARCHY •••••••••••• 20

6. N.YTI-IOLOGY AND !'"lA.TRIARCHY:

EVIDENCE FROM SELECTED NYTHS •••••••••••••••••••••• 38

7 . .['.IJ...l\'I'RIARCHY AND WOMAN:

A .FEMINIST VIEW ••••••••••••••••••••••••• ~ ••••••••• 61

8. SHrvJMl\RY AND CONCLUSIONS ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 85

9. "BIBLIOGRAPHY •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 91

iv ···-· --~---····- ...... ·-~----~----~·---~- -·-·~---~ .. ----·-·--- ········--- --··--- ~ --~--~ --· ·--- .---·~-·-·-· --·------h-•h--~---·-··-----··----~------'-·----~-~-~-: i

ABSTRACT

CHILDREN OF THE GODDESS:

. ~. . . A Critical Examination of

Feminist Writings on the I

Matriarchy.

I by I Lynne Bean I Master of Arts in Anthropology I The primary concern of this thesis is to indicate I the way in \'7hich certain contemporary feminists have

made use of the idea of a matriarchal stage of cul·tural evolution to redefine the nature, values, symbols and I I history of womankind. To provide a historical perspec- ! tive, Bachofen and the Jungians are discussed as non- feminist proponents of a matriarchal stage of history. I Ba.chofen was the 19th century originator of the concept I

of a universal s·tage of culture in which women were r

dominant.• 'I'he Jungians contend tha·t there is a relation-

ship between matriarchal myths and symbols and the

psychic even·ts which determine the behavior of women.

v ------.. -----·----· ------·------·------~~

S2lccted Greek myths, th8ugh·t to be indicative of I a gynocratic epoch are discussed. Consideration of thesel i myths and ·the interpretation given them offers a basis I for understanding the growth of the feminine stereotype. I

Feminists have used these myths ·as a source of symbols I

and values with which to attach and reinterpret this

s·tereotype. An example of the meaning which the matri-

archy holds for feminists is provided by Forfreedom's

(1972:30) statemen·t that the "characteristics that all

matriarchies have shared, and which makes them important

to vJOmen today, is that women in a rna tr iarchy had self-

respect, self-determination in all ways, and all women

at. all levels were assured tha·t the society truly was

governed in t.heir direct interests." Steinem (1973:2-3)

summarizes those values which are thought to have been

characteristic of the matriarchal periods of history and

\vhich feminists "are now trying ·to introduce into the

mainstream; strength and self-reliance for women; peace-

fulness and estee.m for human life; a diminishment both l t ~ I of 'masculine' aggression and o£ the belief that vio- '

lence is the only way of solving conflicts." Feminists II ! also include such qualities as nurturance, empathy,

emotionality and intuitiveness in their description of l values a':tributed to woman "hich are of value to society. I

l j _____ JI

vi ~·~-··- -·------.. - "------··------. ·------·- ·------·------·------l ' I

Thus, while the matriarchy has been used by patri­

archal authors to justify patriarchal institutions it 1 I is now being used by feminist writers to justify a new

and more equalitarian socie-ty.

l l i ______j i

vii INTRODUC['ION

Beginning in the late 1960's a resurgence of

feminism took place in this coun·try and has since ·that

time spread throughout a considerable portion of the globe. Thus there exist today a number of loosely connected, amorphous groups of women known variously as

'rhe Women's Liberation Movement, The Women's Movement or

Women's Lib. The many factors which led to this rebirth of feminism are still far from being clearly detailed and understood. What can be stated with a greater degree of certainty, however, is that the ne~v-ly burgeoning aware- ness on the part of feminis·ts has resulted in a consid- erable body of writings concerning all facets of woman's existence: her political status, sexual behavior, social condi·tion_s, biology and past achievements.

Within the last few years, and increasing at a geometric if not exponential rate, various '1,-TOrks have been produced by women in this society which consider the history of mankind as just that - a "his-story" of male Homo sapiens. Finding what they perceive as an unmitigated bias on the part of masculine writers, par- ticularly in the social sciences, women began to search for new or alternate explanations of their origins. Thus far their quest has led them to anthropology and the con- cept of ·the matriarchy, a theory which has fallen into disrepute among most American anthropologists. The pro-

1 2

posal that there once existed a primitive matriarchy which

preceded and was responsible for the development of civi-­

lization, until it fell under the forces of masculine

aggression, is one of those 19th century evolutionary

schemes which is considered with incredulity, if at all,

by contemporary scholars. It was abandoned under the

burden of the new requirements for more ·than mere sup­

position, however intriguing, and the necessity for pre­

sen·ting at least some semblance of 'hard' data to suppor-t

one's premises.

The intent of this thesis is to offer a critical

examina-tion of some current feminist wri-tings on the matriarchy and the values, my-ths and symbols associated with it. More specifically, my purpose is to indicate

the ways in which feminists have used the idea of a ma-triarchal stage in cultural evolution to redefine the na·ture, values, symbols and history of womankind. These

concepts or ideas were masculine and non-feminist initi­ ally. However, despite their origin, they have been adopted and altered by the feminists to support a new version of womanhood past and present. The feminists considered in this work were chosen on the basis of their publications in support of the concept of a matriarchal stage of history.

This paper will provide a proper historical context in ·which to view the feminists' assertions. The initial 3

section will be primarily concerned with J. J. Bachofen

(1967), as he was the first to insist upon the actuality of a matriarchal period in history. Bachofen also pro­ vides an example of the historical approach to myth, wherein myth is thought to be a reflection of actual historical events and is interpreted as history. Bache­ fen, as originator of the concept of a matriarchal period of culture, is often quoted by the feminist supporters of the matriarchy. However, the feminists are quite selec­ tive in their use of his work and are by no means in com­ plete accord with Bachofen's description Of matriarchal society. Feminists tend to concentrate on Bachofen's characterization of the matriarchy as a time of peace,

E~quality and harmony with na-ture, while ignoring any criticisms he may have made regarding its limitations.

Certain details are also in dispute bet1;veen Bachofen and the feminists. For example, Bachofen viewed woman's dis­ like of promiscuity and her desire for the stability of marriage as a major factor leading to the growth of -the matriarchy. On the other hand, Forfreedom (1972}, a feminis·t supporter of the matriarchy's existence, insists that marriage did not exist as a formal institution during matriarchal times and that women were free to choose or change their sexual partners a·t will. Feminists also ignore Bachofen's (1967) insistence that patriarchy was a necessary and higher stage of development than the 4

preceding gynocracy. Bachofcn believed that womankind lacked ·the proper spiritual attributes to lead humani·ty to greater levels of achievement, while feminists see the success of the patriarchal revolution as a bitter defeat for human progress.

The next section will consider Jung (1959,1968,1969) and certain of his followers who offer another non- fem:Lnis·t v1ew of the matriarchy and its values, myths and symbols. The Jungians contend that there is a rela·tion- ship between matriarchal symbols and the psychic events

-;;,·7h ich determine the behavior of women. ,Jung and his followers offer a psychological interpretation of myth.

'rha·t is, myth is perceived as an expression of events occurring in the human unconscious rather than in exter- nal reality. The J·ungians, however, do not define myth in s·trictly psychological terms. They acknowledge the existence of a matriarchal stage of history arid recognize myth as being evidence of such a period. The Jungian depiction of the ma·triarchy bears almost no resemblance

·to t.ha t of the feminists. To the LTungians the rna triarchy represents the "childhood 11 of humanity, a time in which ego-consciousness - a supposedly masculine attribute - had not yet developed. 1ivomen, both in the present and in the matriarchal past, are seen by the Jungians as sym­ bolizing the instinctive, intuitive, unconscious el~~ents in the human psyche; it is only with the overthrow of 5

the matriarchate by the supposedly further evolved force of masculine consciousness tha·t humanity can progress

·to higher levels of intellectual and technological attain­ men-t. The Jungians give no recognition to woman's possi­ ble contribution to human development during the matri- archal stage. Instead, women of the matriarchy are seen as an encumbrance, as an obstacle to masculine strivings.

JungianS stress woman's basic intellectual inadequacy and see her as achieving fulfillment only in the exercise of her biological function - motherhood. The Jungians use the matriarchy and its myths to support this view of woma.n. The feminis·ts are attempting to eliminate ·the perception of woman exemplified in the Jungian position.

'l,hey consider such a view a distortion of woman's actual nature. By presenting woman as a major force in the evoluJcion of culture and human technological skill, ·the feminists are offering a different and more complete portrait of woman than that provided by the Jungians.

A third way of interpreting myth is used by both

:feminis-ts and non-feminists, though neither acknowledges it as such. This is Malinowski's functional approach.

According to Malinowski (1962:249-251), "myth ..• has to be defined by its function..... Myth supplies ·the charter for ritual belief, moral conduct and social organization."

He adds that the primary objective of myth "is to lay down the effective precedent of a glorified past for re- 6

petitive actions in the present." The use of myth as a

justification for a particular set of beliefs or a ratio­ nale for certain behaviors is seen in feminists like Davis

(1971), who insists tha·t the various myths relating to the

Golden or Silver Age represent a semi-Utopian period when woman ruled. Davis uses these myths to support her con- tention that a social organization in which women are equal, if not dominant, better serves ·the needs of human­ ity than the present male-dominated social structure.

Jun·::rians use myth ·to support their belief in the superi­ ority of patriarchy. Henderson (1963), for example, s·tates tha·t the Theseus myth concerning the youthful Ath­ enian slayer of the Minotaur represents the defeat of a decadent matriarchal culture (Crete) by superior patri- archal groups. This my-th, as well as others, is used by those who support patriarchy to reinforce a belief in the pre-eminence of male-dominated society.

I vdll also discuss some of the myths used as evi­ dence by Bachofen, the Jungians and others to support their beliefs in the matriarchy. This evidence is of grea·t import to feminists and non-feminists alike. Con­ sideration of these myths and the interpretation given them offers, first, a basis for; understanding the growth of the feminine stereotype, as well as archetype. Second­ ly, m~'th provides an embodiment of those feminine values and symbols in a manner which allows feminists to furnish 7

a more accurate (to them) interpretation of their meaning than has hitherto been proffered.

In the concluding section I will examine 1n some detail the feminist descriptions of the ma·triarchy as well as their use of the values and attitudes associated wit.h this assumed historical period. The differences bet\veen the original or non-feminist concept of the matriarchy and tha·t of the feminists will also be given consideration. A brief survey of some feminists who re­ ject the idea of a matriarchal stage will be included to help provide a more complete picture of the totality of the feminist views regarding the matriarchy. Lastly, the implications which the matriarchy holds for the feminist position will be discussed. That is, what is the meaning given t:o the matriarchy by the feminists and to what uses is it being put? It will be shown that it serves an important function \vi thin the Women 1 s 1'1ovement. By emphasizing women's skills and accomplishments during the matriarchal period, ·the feminists, first, offer \vomen a new sense of self-esteem. Stressing that women were res­ ponsible for developmen·ts such as agriculture, textiles, medicine, etc., the feminists instill in women a sense of their own worth. Secondly, the accentua·tion on women's dominant status during the rrtatriarchy also adds to the new feminist vision of womanhood. Instead of accep-ting past definitions of women which depicted them as being 8

fu:nda.mentally passive and submissive creatures, dependent

upon masculine protection and endeavor, women are provided with a history in which they were creative, energetic and

dominant. Feminist belief in a matriarchal stage of cul-

ture also tends to promote a greater sense of cohesiveness

among women, a belief in the ability of women to work

~~gethe£ for desirable changes. Finally, by pointing out

t.he idealistic aspects of the rna triarchy, a_ stage purport-

edly free from internal and external strife, feminists

imply that under women's rule all meinbers of society benefited. As can be seen, the feminists are, although um,rittingly, making use of myth and the matriarchy in terms of Malinowski's (1962), "mythic charter." The matriarchy and its myths are used as a justification for a new social order.

Before proceeding further, I would like to point out

·that t.he emphasis in this paper is no·t on proving the existence of the ma-triarchy. No attempt at a conclusion regarding the validity of the matriarchy as a universal s·tage of culture 1-vill be made. This does not mean that evidence considered supportive of its reality will not be presen·ted. Such evidence, primarily in the form of myth, is, as already noted, an important element in understanding the feminist version of the matriarchy. 9

r'lY1'H AS HISTORY: FOUNDATIONS OF THE _r.1...ATRIARCHY

It v1as no feminist, but the 19th century scholar

Bachofen, who first proposed the existence of a woman

dominated s·tage of culture. Depending primarily upon

the evidence of myth, but also utilizing such early

writers as Herodotus, Hesiod, Strabo and others, he

described a period during ~1hich women ruled both family

and sta·te. The my·thic evidence used by Bachofen will

be discussed in a separate section and certain of the

difficulties inherent in the adaptation of myth to

support a particular hypothesis will be noted. Suffice

it to say at this time that his interpretation of such

evidence can be termed 'historical'. That is, myth is

seen as a reflection of actual events.

Bachofen (1967:73) states that "the mythical tra­ dition may be taken as a fruitful reflection of the life of those times in ,.,,hich historical antiquity is rooted.

I>c is a manifestation of primordial ·thinking, an immediate historical revelation. And consequently a highly reliable historical source." He goes on to add that "all the myths relating to our subject embody a memory of real.­ even·ts experienced by the hu1nan race. They represent not fictions but historical realities" (1967:150-151).

Thus to Bachofen myth provides a way of. discovering various truths regarding the origin and development of human culture. Myth is the Rosetta stone of humankinds' 10

past:; it is the sine g_~~ non of any study of ancient times.

In order to comprehend Bachofen's work more fully,

it might prove beneficial to present some of the more

important influences which helped form it. One such force was 19th century anthropologists' belief in unilinear

evolution. Cultures were thought to evolve at a variable rate, and scholars envisioned a hierarchical arrangement of these societies with Europe (particularly Western

Europe) towering above the rest. Such an ordering in­ volved placing so-called primitive groups at the nether­ most end of the scale. These primitives were thought to correspond to the very earliest periods of European de- velopment. It was thought possible to infer from th~ social organization, institutions, etc., of the tribal qroups the type of conditions which once existed among the now civilized peoples of Europe. Another important element in 19th century anthro- pology ·,ras the reliance on 11 survivals". These can be likened to cultural remnants, that is, isolated behavioral or social traces remaining from an earlier stage of de- velopment. Such survivals were considered to have little or. no relationship to the current period but to have functioned meaningfully in the society of the past. For example, Bacho£en believed that matrilineal descent and matrilocal residence were survivals from a period when ll

women were the dominant members of society, i.e., when all cultures were matriarchal.

A fur·ther element whose influence permeates Bache­

fen's writing is a Victorian attitude toward women. It

is quite likely that most contemporary feminis-ts would

find him highly sexist, and within the context of current feminist attitudes, he is. In the ~nsuing discussion it will be seen that Bachofen's matriarchs take on a definite

Vic·torian aura. As Bamberger (1974:265) points out, he

"romanticizes" or idealizes women and "was .•• not more enlightened than other Victorians in extolling the virtues of chaste love and monogamous and fruitful marriage."

Bachofen's {1967:87) description of woman is often inconsi.sten·t. He sees them as nurturing, maternal and chaste, as forever surrounded by an air of mystery which is "rooted" in woman's "very nature." But he also accuses women of lacking any sense of moderation, being given to undue sensuality and materialism. The way in which Bacha- fen perceives women is closely connected with his expla­ nation of the origin of the matriarchy. Prior to its development a state of unregulated promiscuity existed.

This condition is termed "hetaerism". According to Bache­ fen (1967: 97), "He·taerism fellows the prototype of wild plant life" and "finds its principle embodied in the vegetation and animals of the marshy lowlands, which be­ came its chief gods." r-t is possible that Bachofen con- 12

····--- ...... -----· ...... ------·------··------··· ----- ·------.... --·------·------»·------.. ------· ------! l siders the stage of hetaerism to have been coexistent

with that of the Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic in the

Old World. However, one never finds any but a very

vague indication as to the actual time segments to which

he is referring. During this period a child knows only

its mother with any sureness. Fatherhood has no meaning.

Both young girls and women engage in ritual prostitution.

B;:tchofen is rather obscure concerning the living con-

ditions pertaining at this time. He does assert ·that

het:aerism as well as matriarchy have one underlying

similarity in tha·t they "rest on the same principle: the domination of the generative womb; the difference lies I • • • .I only 1n t:he degree of closeness to nature w1th wh1ch theyj interpret. motherhood" (Ibid.). He adds that it is the I goddess Aphrodite who is the major deity during the stage! of hetaerism. I j If Aphrodite was the primary goddess figure during I. l' the hetaeric age, then the problem of dating becomes all ! the more difficult. Aphrodite worship arose long, long

after the hunting and gathering cycle which Bachofen in-

timates was coeval with hetaerism. It may be that he is

suggesting that fertility worship, as exemplified in the ~­

childbearing capacity of women, \-Jas of great importance ! even prior to the agricultural stage of development. The! I l above quote regarding the significance of the "genera·tive l j l womb" to both phases seems to indicate such an idea. How-l i ______j :.------~..------·-~---~ ---'-----·------·------13

r------"- .. -- "--.. ------"·------·------.------··------1

l ever 1 Bacho:Een provides no real escape from the confusion 1 I which ensues due to his lack of clarifying details.

According to Bachofen (1967:94), the growth of the I

mat::ciarchy was primarily a result of conditions existing

during the period of hetaerism. Matriarchy "everywhere I

g:r:ew ou·t of woman's conscious, continued resistance to

the debasing state of hetaerism. Defenseless against II

abuse by men .•• exhausted by their lustr woman was first

to feel the need for regulated conditions and a purer I I ethic 1 while men ... accepted the new constraint only

unwillingly."

The stage following hetaerism is called the "Deme- I

trian matriarchy". It is unclear what is meant by the I

qualifying term "Demetrian" and Bachofen gives it no I I specific definition. It would seem that the growth of I the matriarchy was simultaneous vli th that. of the Neo- l I lithic, that is, with the start. of the domestication of ' plants and animals. In fact, Bacbofen credits women withl

being responsible for this development. Demeter is the

Greek goddess of the grain (among other things). It is l possible that Bachofen sees her as symbolic of a more I orderly and regulated period of sexuality, just as plant I domestication represents nature ordered and contro.lled. I With the onset. of the Demetrian matriarchy a gradual1 ! lessening of prostitution (or promiscuity?) supposedly I

occurs. Instead of being an activity in which all fe- I1 ~-_, _____...... _...... _:_.._ ·------·---- __j 14

• ·--~-·-··-"· -·· ~~--~~ .. 4-. ·-~-····----~<-·---· ---~---·· ···---~·------~------~~---- .q~------··-----~ • ___ __,.. ______~~~--~------~---·---:""·'·.__....,_-~ ~----~,.,~---.---,--1 males over the age of puberty engage, it is limited to j I ferr7er and fewer persons. Bachofen (1967:95) states that f "originally practiced by matrons, hetaerism is now re- l i l striated to young girls; it is practiced .•• only before

marriage, and even then it is no longer promiscuous but

narrowed down to certain selected persons."

Bachofen (1967:179) sees marriage as an extremely

important element in the development of the matriarchy.

Unfortunately, he is unclear (or the abridged English

transla-tion of his "~rTork leaves out certain important

connections) in his explanation of how the growth of

marriage and the matriarchy takes place. It appears that;I

the rise of matriarchy was quite gradual and that its I ·earlier s-tages were often characterized by conflict bet- !

v·7e8n those who supported hetaerism and others who sought

·the "higher" level of culture represented by "marriage

and mo-ther right."

Marriage is "a deviation from the natural law of

matter" and ·therefore requires expia-tion. ~rhus a period

of hetaerism must occur. "Hetaerism and strict conjugal

law" once in complete opposition "now enter into the

closest connection; prostitution itself becomes a pledge

of marital chastity'' (Bachofen 1967:195). The earlier

religious support given to hetaerism and the difficulty

in overcoming the religious view whi~h sees sexual ex-

elusiveness (i.e., marriage) as against both natural and I 1 _ _gj._y,hn_~__ l C!YL. m~_gg __ ~'_p_~q~~~s ~__ j:_p___ ~ ___h_:b_g_hef_"_ etl:)._-:1._~~· v~--~~ .. -·-~-_j 15

slm,," (Ibid.) .

The matriarchy, because of increasing restrictions on

p:r:-ostitution, supposedly grew stronger and spread. Women

became the dominant social force. Bachofen does not

specifically note when this efflorescence took place.

Ho...,..Tever, the indications are that he considered at least

the early stages of the Bronze Age as gynocratic.

There is little concrete information regarding the

social organization, institutions, economics, etc., of

thi~> t.ime. Wha·t Bachofen (1967:87) does describe, how­ ever, is quite appealing. The matriarchy, at its best, was characterized by a "sense of universal fraternity among all men." Freedom and equality were available to alL There \ITas little conflict either within or be·tween the various nation-states. Physical violence was abhor­ rent and even animals were protected by the fiat against brutal or violent behavior.

Bacho£en (1967:91-92) does perceive various negative

·tendencies along with the many virtues he describes. For e~-cample, he considers the matriarchal peoples unduly

"subservient to matter". He finds them overly concerned with form and externals rather than with inner spiritual factors. Matriarchy is "regulated naturalism, its thinking is maternal, its development predominantly physical."

'I'he decline of the matriarchy, like its onset, was 16

·.··-·····~···~...... ···-·-~----·-----~-----········ ...... -··--~·-·-~····------.------·--·---·-·-·--·-·•«··-· .. -!

supposedly gradual. Why such a decline occurred in the

first place is obscure. Bachofen points to a recurrence

of hetaerism but never discusses the specific elements

which led to such a phenomenon. All that is stated is

tha·t a·t leas·t some of the women renounced marriage in

favor of prostitution. New cults, such as that of Dio-

nysus, also grew. These tended to appeal to the sensual

rather than the spiritual needs of humanity. Dionysus,

though a masculine phallic god, answered to the erotic

component in woman's nature. In this phase of the matri-

archy the "Aphroditean principle of carnal emancipation"

prevailed (1967:103). And this sexual freedom (or li-

cerise) in turn contributed to the demise of the rnatri-

"spiritual life over corporeal existence; the victory of l pa·ternity over the chthonian-maternal principle. n One I I notes here an adumbration of the Jungian assertion that I I the male principle is symbolic of the light or sun, as ! well as the intellectual and spiritual facets of the per-! I sonali·ty. Woman, however, is emblematic of the darker, I ' 'l tellurian, material sphere. Bachofen, no less than the l i ,Tungians (see belm·l), views "the establishm_e_n_t___ of _ _Pat~-~=-J i ~~--~------~----··"---~~~-----h-~· 17

nal

anian solar hero" (Ibid. ) .

pointed out. As stated before, his sources consist of

some of the earliest written documents as well as many ofj the great classical writers. Using one of these writers I as a check of the veracity of another is one of Bachofen's I (1967:72) methods for assuring authenticity. Thus he can! I say tha·t "tested by historically established truths, the l my-thical tradition is seen to be an authentic independent l record of the primordial age, a record in which invention

plays no part." Such is not necessarily the case. 'fhe

records available are scanty and fragmentary. Further,

Bachofen (1967:74-75) was aware that these records often

indicated obvious changes. In fact, such mythic in·ter- I polations formed part of the evidence used to support his! position. Regarding this, he states that "later ages

will endeavor to extend the rule of its own ideas to

ideas and facts that are alien to it ..• where it has

succurnbed ·to later influence, myth becomes even more

instructive. Since the changes usually result from the

unconscious action of the new ideas ..• ·the legend becomes 1 j. j in it transformations ••• a faithful reflection of all the j J periods in the life of that people." I It is even more difficult to accept Bachofen's I

(1967: 73) assertion that "all the ancients who wrote about!I l __ j 18

the earliest. times" did so 1;..1ith "meticulous fidelitv" and J,

a "reluctance to tamper vli th the vestiges of the primor-

dial ''l'lorld." I was unable to find anything to support

such a contention. In fact, in the Dictionary of Class­

cal Antiquities, Seyffert (1967:303) suggests the oppo­

site. He notes, for example,. that both Homeric poems

were, almost immedia·tely following their public debut,

subjected to "many arbitrary alterations, chiefly at the

hands of the learned who sought ·to improve the text."

Earlier it was noted that Bachofen (1967) viewed

matrilineal descent rules and matrilocal residence as

survivals from a matriarchal period. Harris (1968:196)

in his book The Rise of Anthropological Theory discusses

Bachofen, among others, and points out that this was a

major anthropological criticism of Bachofen's theory.

Harris states that "None of Bachofen' s critics, \vi th the

exception perhaps of Morgan, understood that the locus of

authority in matrilineal descent was vested in mother's

brother."

In conclusion, Bachofen (1967) appears to offer a

r3.ther precarious foundation for those feminists who wish

to prove the existence of a matriarchal stage of history.

His work is fraught with inconsistencies and distortions

regarding early human development. His attitude towards women would also seem to have little appeal to feminists,

since it is doubtful he would concur with their concept 19

of liberated womanhood. He insists that despit~ their contributions, ma·triarchal women were limited by nature

2.nd capacity. Lacking in proper "spiritual" att.ainment, they could not succeed in achieving a higher level of culture. It was only with the advent of patriarchy tha·t humanity (i.e., men) could reach its proper sphere. This aspect of Bachofen is virtually ignored by the feminists who cite him - as is understandable. E'or them it is enough that he asserts the existence of the ma·triarchy ~ ··- '--- ·-··· ____ ,,,_..... ··--···· ·------..... ---·-- ---·--·---~---- ·-· .. --"·-··-··· -·-···-~------~------, MYTH AND SYMBOL: A JUNGIAN VIEW OF WOMEN AND MATRIARCHY I I As noted in the introduc-tion, myth has played a major ! part. in upholding the validity of the matriarchy as a stage in cultural evolution. Earlier, Bachofen (1967) I was discussed as originator of the idea of the matriarchy I and as a proponent of the historical in-terpretation of I myth. But it is not just the reality of the matriarchy

wi-th which the feminis·ts are concerned, though one can

not underestima·te its importance to them. It is also the

values and symbols that have been used to characterize I women which they are now a·ttempting to reinterpret and i ! combine in a meaningful way.

Jung and his followers have been incorporated in·to

I this work because of their view of the matriarchy and

I1 their use of various myths and symbols to present a i I! highly stereotyped picture of women. By emphasizing only l 1 certain attributes, such as intuition, nurturance, pas- 1 l sivity, and so forth, the Jungians have denied v-mman full l_· human status. That is, though they may praise some of Il ! 1 her qualities, they also presen·t woman as being limited li and immature in many important areas. She is seen as l exercising certain "masculine" perogatives, such as I aggressiveness or intellectuality, only at the risk of I I • .· I losing her feminine essence. It is this type of distorted/ I and deforming image which feminists are attempting ·to com-· I ba·t with their version of the matriarchy and its values. i l __j 1..----v-·,..~--~-----·--·------·------

20 21

Before considering a Jungian view of the matriarchy

and feminine symbols, it is necessary to introduce some

elemen·ts of Jung' s general approach towards myth and his

description of what is meant by the archetype. Just as

Bachofen interpreted myth historically, Jung tends t.o

offer what might best be called a 'psychological' inter-

pretation of it. However, it should be noted that these

are essentially labels for very general positions around

which pertinent information can be organized.

The pivotal element in Jung's interpretation of

myth concerns its source and direction. To Jung (1959:7)

my·th is a reflection of psychic even·ts "projected" ou·t-

ward. According to this view, the sum total of the "myth-

ologized processes of nature" {e.g. the seasons, movements

of planets, and so forth) "are in no sense allegories of

these objective occurrences." Instead "they are symbolic

expressions of the inner unconscious drama of the psyche

which becomes accessible to consciousness by way of pro-

jection."

The psyche contains all the images that have ever g1ven ·rise to myths.·..• our unconscious is an acting and suffering subject with an inner drama which prim­ itive man discovers by means of analogy, in the process of nature {Italics mine.).

According to Jung, a myth does not result from the in-

dividual's observation of what is manifested 'out there'

·and the consequent feelings engendered by such obser- ..· ,· 22

vaticns. It is not what is without, but what is within,

which requires expression.

Jung (1969:10) accepts that a "capacity for learning

and for consciousness" is an integral component of the

psyche. But he stresses that despite this, it remains

a "natural phenomenon like the psyche of animals, and is

based on inborn instincts which bring their own specific

forms with them, and in this way constitute the heredi·ty

of the species."

'ro Jung (1959: 8), then, the symbols and images of · myth are "spontaneous productions of the psyche." They have not been - nor could they be - artificially con-

trived. Their inception is as ineluctable as the growth and decay of a cell or the sparking of a synapse~ Con- sidering this emphasis on instinctual elements as factors in mythogenesis, it might prove valuable to describe one suggestion concerning the possible relationship between myth and physiology.

Joseph campbell {1959:42), a notable scholar in the field of comparative mythology offers the following as one area of possible interest.

A'new and very promising approach ... to mythic interpretation ... is opened ... when it is viewed in the light of bio- .· logical psychology as a function of the human nervous system, precisely homo~ logous to innate and learned sign stimuli that release and direct the energies of nature. 23

'l'hE-~ idea appears worthy of further examina-tion. Equally

important, however, is that here we have an attempt to

describe the actual properties of such structures. It

is believed that certain "innate releasing mechanisms"

(IP~'s) are part of the nervous system of animals. These

IID·I' s make possible response to novel stimuli by initi­

ating a particular type of reaction within the organism. The classic example is usually that of the response of

nevTly-hatched chicks to a chicken hawk (their natural

enemy). It was discovered that, irrespective of their having had no previous contact \vi th the chicken hawk,

the chicks immediately sought safety when he flew over their pen. Subsequent studies indicated that no other species of birds, including those that found baby chicks a quite acceptable dish, brought about this intense and immediate fear response.

Campbell goes on to speculate that in an unques­ tionably far more complex manner, humans may also make use of particular 11 sign stimuli" or 11 releasing" mecha­ nisms. If there has been research done on the basis of

Campbell's suggestion, made initially in 1959, I am un­ able to find any record of it. It is unfortunate, since various concepts, including Jung's "collective uncon­ scious .. and its 11 contents" might bear re-examination in light of this physiological dimension. 24

Jung (1959:40) postulates that in addition ·to the

"personal unconscious" there is another segment of the

psyche which "does not ••• owe its existence to personal experience and is consequently not a personal acqui- I I s:t.-c.J.on.~ . . '' This latter is what we term the "collective i unconscious." It is one of the most crucial, as well l as controversial elements of Jungian theory. The "per- I sonal unconscious" consists of "individual acquisitions •. ~

\ i products of instinctive processes that make up the per- i I I· sonality as a whole." However, the "contents .•• of the I collective unconscious ••. mve their existence exclusively ~.~,!, . l to heredity" (1959: 42). Thus, the individualized section! of one's unconscious is susceptible to modification under( ! I a variety of conditions. But the "collective" portion is) 'I essentially, pre-determined by virtue of one's membership! in the species Homo sapiens. I

Jung (1959:43) describes the "second psychic systemn or "collective unconscious" as being "of a collective, universal and impersonal nature which is identical in all ir1dividuals." It "consists of pre-existent forms, the archet~pes, which can only become conscious secondarily

a "hypothetical and irrepresentable model" which, however, 25

also has a definite "existence" or "reality" despite

its ephemeral character. Jung (1959:76) 1s a self-

admitted "realist" in the Platonic sense of the term .

... as an empiricist, I must point out that there is a temperament which re­ gards ideas as real entities and not merely as nomina .•.. for the past two hundred years we have been living in an age in which it has become unpopular or even unintelligible to suppose that ideas could be anything but nomina •... Once again, in the age old controversy over universals, the nominalist stand­ point has triumphed over the realistic and the idea has evaporated into a mere flatus vocis.

For those unfamiliar with the nominalism-realism controversy to which Jung refers, a brief review of

Platonic "Idealism" from whence it sprang should prove helpful. One of the major propositions in Plato's

(1965) system concerned the actual existence of a world of universal and absolute forms. These forms or "ideas" were thought not only to have preceded (in the spatial- temporal dimen:::;ion) any of the physical representations of this level of existence, but to have greater 'reality' than any such tangible representations. To the Platonist, for example, the "Idea" of a statue in the mind of a sculptor would have more 'realness' than the statue completed. And the universal "Idea" of which the sculp- tor's idea partakes, would have greater 'reality' still.

The statue itself is only an image, a feeble copy or rendering, so to speak; of the Universal Form from which 26

it ultima·tely derives. In later periods the Platonic view was subsumed under the title of realism. As such, it stood in direct opposition to the nominalist position.

Nominalism takes the view that unive:r.-sals, forms, "Ideas" or any other abstraction possess no reality per se. They are simply convenient labeling devices. Further, they are secondary and derived in that they occur as a result of observed phenomena. To return to the sculpting ex­ ample, the idea of sculpture is seen to be no more than an outcome of the observation of the actual process of sculpting and its product.

For Jung (1959:79), the victory of empiricism and subs~quent domination of the nominalist school is un­ acceptable. He insists that "there is an a priori factor in all human activities, namely the inborn preconscious and unconscious individual structure of the psyche."

Further "there are present in every psyche forms which are unconscious but active - living dispositions, ideas in the Platonic sense, that preform and continually in­ fluence our thoughts and actions." It is these "living dispositions" or "ideas" which are the archetypes. In continued discussion of them, Jung (1959:4) indicates that they are "patterns of instinctual behavior 11 and may even be "unconscious images of the instincts them­ selves." Initially they are "forms without content .•• archaic or.;. .primordial types •.. universal ima.ges that 27

have existed since the remotest times."

In another work Jung (1968:41) states that the arche-

types contain "in form as well as meaning, mythological

motifs." These mythic themes are found "in pure form in

fairy tales, myths, legends, and folklore." Unfortu-

nately, the manner in which myth and the archetype inter-

act is never really clarified. At one point we are told

that in myth "we are dealing with forms that have re-

ceived a specific stamp and have been handed down through

long periods of time." However, Jung (1959:5) adds that

"the term archetype designates only those psychic contents

which have not yet been submitted to conscious elaboration

and are therefore an immediate datum of psychic experi-

ence."

The exact way in which the archetype becomes imbued

with a particular content is also never stipulated. We

are merely told that the archetype can take 11 color" from

the individual as well as the culture or group in which

it exists. But Jung strongly implies that, like the

universal forms, the archetype once endowed with definite

characteristics, ceases to be one in the original sense.

That is, it becomes a sort of quasi-archetype which, in

obtaining content, ceases to be of the formless, non-

specific variety.

The "mother archetype," or the "Great Mother Arche­

, type" (the two are synonomous) is a focal point around

a detailed body of work has been constructed. In 28

an earlier discussion it was noted that Jung considered

speculation regarding the ultimate origin of the psyche

and its archetypes as belonging to the purview of the

metaphysician. However, he does invest women - mortal

women - with a causal significance of a more proximate

kind. The mother is "the psychic as well as the physical

precondition of the child," and it is she who is the

"carrier of the archetype" (Jung 1959:102).

Just as the mother furnishes the initial symbolic

form or matrix for an archetype, the father contribu-tes

the "dynamism" element which is of equal necessity. This basic duality, in turn, is ultimately reconciled into wholeness and unity. The duality of the archetype is defined in terms of "form" (feminine) and "energy" (mas- culine). But this duality and its termination in the whole is of considerable significance to the Jungian Weltanschauung. I shall return to it at a later point.

The "Great Mother Archetype", like any other, can appear in an almost infinite multiplicity of shapes. The biological mother (or her surrogate), grandmother and any other significant figures in the child's life contribute to, as \vell as represent, the more significant of the archetype's distinctive attributes. But it is not the ·'i contributions of the actual mother which concern us here.

Instead i"t is the mythological implications which are of particular interest. 29

Myths supply the 'figurative mothers', those many

goddesses of mythic lore or, as some would have it, the

Goddess of many names. And it is in the mother-goddess

figure that the inherent ambivalence of forces is mos·t

clearly evident. In her positive attitude the goddess-

mother becomes the personification, the very essence of-

warmth, nurturance and protection from harm. She is the

source of all bounties. But in her darker, chthonic

aspect she is the configuration of evil, life destroying

forces - the enmeshing and entangling shape of Thanatos.

I will return to the Goddess as presented in specific

myths subsequently. Suffice it to say that, for the

Occident, it is the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, Queen -of

Heaven, to give a few of her innumerable titles, who is

the outstanding symbol_of the Great Goddess in Her kindly

and beneficent phase, and, though not in the least corn-

parable in terms of intensity of expression or extent of

popularity, it is perhaps Lilith or the stone-producing

visage of Medusa which best expresses the Goddess in her

wrathful state.

Jung (1959:81) states that as an outgrowth of "the

; protection it implies, the magic circle of mandala can

be a form of the mother archetype." Also "Hollow ob-

jects •.• the uterus, yoni, and anything of like shape .•.

are associated with the mother archetype". And that ·duality which is inhe~ent in the "mother archetype" also

----~·- ...... ------...... ,.

- ;,·. 30

r--··---·-··-··-··· ·- ·-·. ······----·-·-·-···--·-····---·-·--- -·········-·-·-···· ·---·------.------·------.., ! t I characterizes the symbols and images associated with it. ! I j Any one of these symbols can acquire a "positive, favor- I able meaning" as well as one which is "negative and evil."! Other "qualities associated with .•. the mother arche- I type" include "maternal solicitude and sympathy; the :::~:::i::t::::t:r::s:::d::::~n~:n:i::::f::di:::::::a:rl impulse; and all that is benign, all that cherishes and I1 sustains, that fosters growth and fertility. The place ofl magic transformation and rebirth, together with the under- 1 I ~vorld and its inhabitants are presided over by the mother ·"I Finally, the·"three essential aspects of the mother .. are I

described. "Her cherishing and nourishing goodness, her

orgiastic emotionality, and her Stygian depths" {Jung

1959:82).

Neumann (1954), provides a relatively well-defined

description of the interrelationship between certain

Bronze Age myths, various mythic themes and the Great

Nother archetype. He also offers an excellent example of the difficulties inherent in attempts to separate the

many approaches to myth into arbitrary categories. Purity

of method is seldom achieved within the field of myth-

! ology. llj 1 Basically, Neumann attempts to integrate both his- 1 torical and psychological perspectives within a Jungia.n I t_:ramewo~·-·--Am-ong the works of Jung (1959,1968,1969) disj .J.l

r··--·------···--··--··-·-·--·-····--·------·-····----·---·········----···----···········-·-·-·-·------·-··-·---··-··1 I I I cussed in this paper there was no sp~cific indication of 1 li his position regarding the relationship of cultural his- l ! tory and myth. Nor did I find any definite s·taternent l

I regarding his views on the absence or presence of a ll

ll:! matriarchal stage of culture. It is possible, however, !l I I to judge from what Neumann (1954) and other Jungians I j impute to Jung, as well as from Jung' s own writings, that i I l f he did subscribe to some version of the matriarchy ·theory 4 i I To Neumann, myths of the Great Goddess reflect a 1

l particular period in the development of human culture as l

II'l well as the human psyche. However, prior to the stage of j growth represented by the supremacy of the Goddess, was I I an earlier level during which the unconscious was still in an undifferentiated state. Mythologically, such a

time is symbolized by the circle or sphere. More con- iI i cretely, it is the Worm Uroborus, the "Heavenly Serpent" which devours itself. Pictorially, the Worm Uroborus

is usually drawn as a serpent or dragon whose body forms

I a circle, the head feeding upon the tail. It is emble-

I matic of th~ eternal round of birth and death, a process without beginning and without ending. All of these·im-

ages, whether sphere, serpent, worm, or circle are symbo

I of the "original perfection .•• which even our present-day

consciousness can only understand as paradoxes, precisely

because it cannot grasp them" (1954:12). Neumann (1954:13) also sees in the Urobo~r_u_s_._l._·_m_a_g_e~a~ L_·~------~------~~-~-----~------... ~ 32

"union of masculine and feminine, ••• the world parents

joined 1n perpetual cohabitation." However, he insis·ts

that what is indicated is not sexuality but origination.

"The problem around which mythological statement revolves

arid which was from the beginning the crucial question .•.

is concerned with the origins of life, of the spirit and

the soul."

It is not possible, within the limits of this paper,

to consider the metaphysical and/or philosophical assump-

tions in the above statements. They do offer a sample,

however, of some of the intricate concepts which those

involved in mythic interpretation often introduce to the

subject ..

Following the initial period of ment.al/cultural

development is the stage of gynocratic rule. Neumann

(1954:39) states that "Bachofen's matriarchate stands

for the time when ego consciousness is undeveloped and

still embedded in nature and the world ••• The world

experienced by the waking ego of humanity is the world of the matriarchate with its goddesses of rno·therhood and destiny. The wicked devouring mother and the good mother

lavishing affection aretwo sides of the great Uroboric

Nether Goddess who reigns over this psychic stage."

Neumann views the gynocratic stage as the childhood of humanity. The ego~ still in a relatively nascent state ·-,- has only a tenuous hold on existencei it is easily over- 33

whelmed by the complexity of its own nature as well as

that which it is just beginning to comprehend as ex·ternal

to it. Continual battles between the newly emerging "mas-

culine" awareness and the authority of t:he matriarchate

took place. Womankind induced fear and, through fear,

produced inhibition in the masculine population. Man's

frustration over the conflicting needs of independence

and security increased. He was forced to fight against

the temptation to succumb to the solicitude and warmth

which characterized the matriarchy. To Neumann, these

conflicts are reflected in the various myths relating

to the overthrow and usurpation of the goddess by that

of the hero-god. More specifically, the antagonism

and its resolution can be seen in the changes which

occurred relative to the position, function, and general

demeanor of both the goddesses and gods.

One or two more obvious inconsistencies can be

found in Neumann's approach. Like Jung (1959), Neumann

(1954:42) views consciousness itself as masculine,

whether in man or woman. "The spirit-instinct polarity ·

is organized on a different basis in men and women.· Con-

sciousness as such, is masculine, even in women. Just as

the unconscious is feminine in men." This would result

in a rather entangled state of affairs relative to the

actual period of gynocracy. That is, woman supposedly

be fighting to hold her power while at the same

' ' ·~ -.. ·' :: : 34

time, on her masculine-conscious level, fighting to

alter conditions which, if changed, would result in the loss of power. The perplexities inherent in such a sit­ uation might appeal to a sophist, but as an explanation it does seem inadequate.

There is another difficulty, besides that of the dubious distinction made between masculine and feminine consciousness. Neumann, in supporting the historical reality of the matriarchy, implies that women had de­ veloped sufficient ego-strength to guide their societies, while men were at a lower stage. He seems to imply that, at least on a psychic level, there are different rates of evolution for men and women. First, he never makes clear just how {or if) this psychic evolution occurs; he does not indicate whether it i3, in any way, related to physical evolution. He assumes that the psyche, con­ sciousness and ego are givens and does little to clarify

·their meaning. Secondly, in accepting the proposition that woman is by nature submissive, he does not indicate how she was able to achieve, let alone maintain, her position of authority.

Finally, Neumann rarely indicates any specific dates for the periods or stages he describes. He asserts that one of woman's strengths, in terms of maintaining her rule, was due to the absence of any knowledge regarding the masculine role in procreation~ However, he uses 35

myths as evidence to support his position which are

taken from cultures far too advanced not to be aware

of the factor of paternity. It should be noted that

Neumann is not the only one to hold such a posi·tion

in this respect. Bachofen {1967) and Graves (1955)

also emphasize the ignorance of the male as to his

function in conception. If, as Campbell (1965) in-

dicates, the worship of the Great Goddess continued

into the Bronze Age and such worship paralleled the

period of the matriarchy, then it is extremely unlikely

that men were not aware of fatherhood. In fact, it is

possible that such knowledge arose several thousand years prior to that stage.

Woman, according to Neumann (1954) and Jung (1959)

symbolizes darkness, the unconscious, "pits, 11 creatures of unknown or chthonian origin, and so forth. Men, on the contrary, are thought of in terms of ego, dynamism, spirit, light, and the sun. It is necessary to inquire if, perhaps, such a classification does not reflect a certain bias, a rather too personalized (or sexualized) perspective. It is possible that it is only ~ who view themselves and women in terms of these symbols. If so,· it would tend to cast doubt on the validity of such a classification.

Henderson (1968:111) another of Jung's disciples, sees myth as a means of understanding the "nature" or

·. ••• J'_ 36

''essence" of both sexes. Accordingly, he states ·that,

"In the developing consciousness of the individual the

hero figure overcomes the inertia of the unconscious mind,

and liberates the mature man from a regressive longing to

return to ·the blissful state of infancy in a world dom-

inated by his mother." He goes on to add that Theseus,

the mythical hero-king who figures prominently in several

Greek myths and legends, "represented the young patri-

archal spirit of Athens." Theseus' successful trans-

versal of the labryinth and killing of the Minotaur is

thought to symbolize "the unhealthy decadence" of matri-

archal Crete. "In all cultures the labryinth has the

meaning of an entangling and confusing representation of

matriarchal consciousness" (1968:117).

Henderson (1968:130) states that girls "share in

the masculine hero myths" as they, like boys, must "de-

velop a reliable ego-identity." However, with the girl

there is "an older layer of the mind that seems to come

to the surface in their feelings, with the aim of making

them into women, not imitation men." Contemporary woman :.-·· may try to "repress ••• this ancient content of the psy-

che ••• because it threatens to cut her off from the eman-

cipated equality of friendship and opportunity to compete

with men that have become her modern privileges" (Italics mine.) •

.::," 37

One cannot help but speculate that what the modern woman 1s "repressing" is her anger, both ancient and new, at this type of characterization.

...;. MYTHOLOGY AND MATRIARCHY: EVIDENCE FROM SELECTED MYTHS

The following section will be primarily devoted to

certain myths used by both feminists and non-feminists

to support their contention regarding the reality of the

matriarchy. Before delving into the myths themselves,

however, it might prove useful to indicate some of the

difficulties inherent in any type of interpretation of

myth.

The nature of myth and its relationship to the

psycho-cultural history of humankind is one of those

areas of exploration which borders on the fanciful musings

of the imagination rather than the rational logical par-

ameters of human thought. The findings of ·those who study

the nature and meaning of myth are often as unsubstantial

(and unsubstantiated) as myth itself. Whether one con-

siders myth in terms of its definition, origins, com-

ponents, or function - one is impressed by the degree of

variability characterizing its examination. The apparent

receptiveness of myth to widely divergent interpretations

has resulted in its being used to support a whole range

. of beliefs.

One notices, among the many dilemmas encountered by

the mythologist, the deceptively simple one of defini·t.ion.

It is reminiscent of the plight both anthropologists and

psychologists face in defining the terms· "culture" and

. ' ~ "personality". Everyone· agr~es that there should be an

38 39

r---·--·-----·-··--····----··---·------... -·····-··--·----·--··----···· ---····--·------, i i agreed-upon definition but no one can agree upon the def-j inition itself. Myth tends to be either so broadly de- I fined as to render it almost meaningless or so narrowly I defined as to make it useless. Besides referring to suchl . - I things as a body of symbols, tales, rites, etc., myth canl

also be used to denote a belief not having any basis in fact. To put it another way, myth is sometimes a term l

applied with derision to the beliefs held by one group ~~-~ by the non-believers of another. It is seen as a false­ hood in the sense of being contrary to fact or reality. I Among the various mythologists included in this wor~! Graves (1955:1:15) offers the most succinct definition of! myth. He states that "True myth may be defined as the I reduction to narrative shorthand of ritual mime p~rformedl

on public festivals, and in many cases recorded p~ctorall1. on temple walls, vases, seals, bowls, mirrors, chests, I I shields, tapestries, and the like." Bachofen (1967)

I appeared to describe rather than define myth. Jung (19 59,' I l 1968,1969) and Neumann (1954), like Bachofen, seemed to j -~etsmnoareturcoen.cerned with the function of myth than with l ~ That is, among these writers the essential i I l attributes of myth are assumed or implied relative to its 1 use. One could argue, possibly, that the t\vo are, in ··thell I case of myth, inextricably combined. Scherer (1960:35) l takes such a position in the following: Myths are the instruments by which we I..... , ___ , continually struggle to._m_a_k_e___ o_u_r_~e_x_-._- -~----_j 40

.. -- ·---··------~-~---·-·-----· perience intelligible to ourselves. A myth is a large, controlling image that gives philosophical meaning to the facts of ordinary life; that is, which has organizing value for ex­ perience. A mythology is a more or i less articulated body of such images, l a pantheon. Without such images, ex- 1 perience is chaotic, fragmenting and j merely phenomenal. It is the chaos l of experience which forms them, and I they are intended to rectify it.

I lAs can be seen, the above is an attempt 'to define myth l l in terms of its cognitive function. As such, it is a l viable point of view. However, it does often lead to Ii l I greater rather than lesser misunderstanding of the mean- l I ing inherent in the myth i-tself. I I Another area involving many pitfalls in ·the inter- I pretation of myth concerns the changes or alterations l which occur in a myth over time. Many mythologists are ! interested primarily in what appear to be radical changes I

in the mythic 'message'. Such alterations or inversions 1 are thought to be indicated by a reversal of positions of !l the various deities. The tendency in looking at such evidence is to reason from 'how' to 'why'. An initial I observation is made, for example, regarding a change-in the status of the female deity vis a vis the male. How- I ever, after pointing out how such an inversion was made, l the mythologists then take another step in their analysis l which often has only a tenuous connection with the first. I They describe not only what the changes were and how they l we_Ee made, but also include a statew.ent ~~ w._hy theL.__. 41

took place. To continue 'l.·.rith our example, they might

insist. as Graves (1955) does that a reversal in the

position of the female principle from dominant over the

male in the early myths to subordinate in the later

versions vTas made in order to lend support to the patri-

archal revolution. This is a "myth as charter" inter-

pretation (Malinowski 1962). The major criticism of

this type of reasoning is that it has certain tautological overtones.

The proponents of the above view would insist that

the differing versions of the myth in question are a

result of the changes from matriarchy to patriarchy. Yet

the evidence given for such a change in the social system

are frequently the same myth in its original form, with

little or no external corroboration. The problem, then,

becomes one of providing supportive material of an e·th-

nographic nature concerning the particular culture in

which the myth arose. Unfortunately, evidence from areas

and time segments in which the matriarchy is thought to

have occurred is rather difficult to obtain.

Archeological findings such as those provided by

Mellaart (1967) may have potential usefulness as one type

of supplementary evidence. However, it is necessary to

examine these findings very carefully; archeology has

its own problems with interpretation of data. It is not

.~.,. ; ,, unheard of for the archeologist to look to outside 42

,-. ------~----- ______,__,_l l sources, including myth, to help him/her determine the I I context of certain discoveries, thus setting up another I somewhat precarious circular relationship. Another fac- !l tor in the reliance on archeology is the tendency for I non-archeologists to interpret the archeological evidence I in a manner that goes considerably beyond its implications) ·I as stipulated by the archeologist. I There is in myth a certain underlying ambiguity I which makes it particularly susceptible to a wide variety of interpretations. When one adds to the vagueness of

the myth the strong proclivity to a particular bias on

supporting whatever belief, theory, hypothesis, etc., is

held by the individual interpreting it. This is especi-

ally so when there is little or no ethnographic infor-

mation regarding the culture in which the myth is found.

Specifically regarding the feminists' use of myth,

the immediate observation is that their analysis falls

within the historical category. Davis (1971:42) for

example, is quite explicit in her acceptance of this··

viewpoint; "mythology is the memory of real events ex-

perienced by the human race." Chesler (1972:18) also

indicates a belief in the historical efficacy of myth:

"Myths preserve the history of human thought ... as well

as·the history of human deeds." Chesler, however, does ______._,__J . I 43

not limit herself to a strictly historical viewpoint~

In speaking of the Greek Amazon myths she states that

at their "psychological heart" are "two important themes.

First ... the theme of women sacrificing and killing men"

as. enemies in warfare or "in infancy, because they, like

infant girls in patriarchal cultures, are less important

or too burdensome to raise; or in the slower and less

'violent' death of lifelong domesticity and political

subservience." A second theme "is that of the ultimate

male triumph over such female acts: by slaughtering" the

women "in battle, or by converting them to Aphrodite or

Dionysius male-worship" (Ibid.).

It will be seen, on scrutinizing the feminist

writings more closely, that there is an implicit accep­

tance of at least a modified form of historical inter­

pretation. At the same time, however, there is no ob­ vious attempt to make explicit such an acceptance, nor

to deliberately exclude other types of interpretation.

One finds that, with the exception of Davis (1971), the

feminists tend to be general, even vague, in their dis-· cussion of the merits of myth. It is usually accepted, without argument or analysis, that a particular body of myth reflects woman's original position of dominance~

That mythic conflicts, such as those which took place between Zeus and Metis or Tiamat and Marduk, are a dis­ guised commentary on a historical situation - the over-

<-; .. ·• 44

events. Part of this lack may stem from the fact that 1 these women are not specialists in ei·ther comparative I • mythology, anthropology, or history; nor are they writing I J I l as scholars within a particular area of specialization. i I Thus they are limited by their background in regard to the! l number of details they can present. They are further. 1 I 1 l limited (if one can term it a limitation) by their J.ntent. 1 i I l The feminists' purpose would appear to fall within the I

I1 realm of myth as progoganda as noted above. They are not

interested in critical acceptance by assorted academi- I I cians. There is nothing subtle about their bias, their ' I belief is obvious to all, their premise is clearly asser- I ted - the matriarchy did exist! I ! Feminist writers also ·tend to rely on secondary I sources for the myths considered indicative of a matri- I archal period. Graves (1955), one of the foremost trans~ lators and interpreters of early Greek myths, is fre~ I quently cited by the feminists. It is in his favor that I I he is a strong believer in a matriarchal stage of culture. j 1 I I Davis (1971) also makes use of a considerable number of I I other experts, l f I archeologists, whose inclusion may be based not so much l 45

,______--·-- -·------... ·----·------·-"--·------... --··----·--- ...... ------'----·---· --l on their belief in the rna tr iarchy as on her own some.times I ! peculiar way of (Hs.) interpreting ·their findings. i:s can be seen in the following passage, Davis (1971:33) I

definitely overstating her case:

In all myth throughout the world ••• the first creator of all is a goddess .••• In later myths she is replaced by a god -sometimes deliberately • .:.sometimes by an arbitrary change in sex but not in name ••• and sometimes by a gradual meta­ morphasis from female to male. It is simply not true that worldwide the "first creator I of all is a goddess." However, it is not unheard of to

have a goddess as initator of all creation. For example,

in Greek mythology one finds several different versions

of the creation myth, some pre-dating the introduction of

the Olympian pantheon. The myth which follows, trans-

lated by Graves (1955:I:27), is one of the earliest, a i I I Pelasgian creation myth. As will be seen, in this case I the creator is female. I In the beginning Eurynome, the Goddess of All Things rose naked from Chaos, but found nothing substantial for her feet to rest I upon, and therefore divided the sea from the sky, dancing lonely upon its \vaves ~ She danced towards the south, and the ·wind set in motion behind her seemed something I new and apart with which to begin a work I of creation. Wheeling about, she caught hold of this north wind, rubbed it between her hands, and behold! the great serpent Ophion. Eurynome danced to warm herself, wildly and Ii more wildly, until Ophion, grown lustful, coiled about those divine limbs and was moved I to couple with her •.• Next, she assumed the form of a dove~ .• and, in due process of time, laid the Universal _ j____ _ Egg. At h~~ bidding, Ophion coiled seven times I 46

i·---~·-~·~- .. -~--..-. --·--~~---·---~---·------·-,~----~-----·----·---~·0<··-·-·------·-····----·.-...------~------·--·--·-- ...... - .....---1

, about this egg, until it hatched and 1, split in two. Ou·t tumbled all things 1 that exist, her children: sun, moon, ! planet, s·tars, and earth with its mountains and rivers, its trees, herbs, and living creatures. Eurynome and Ophion made their home upon Mount Olympus, where he vexed her by claiming to be the author of the Universe. Forth­ with she bruised his head with her heel, kicked out his teeth, and banished him to the dark caves below the earth. I 'l'he myth goes on to relate how Eurynome 11 created the seven I I' planetary powers, setting a Titaness and Titan over each11

and proceeds to note the names of these demigods. It also

tells of the first man whose name was "Pelasgus, ancestor

of the Pelasgians; he sprang from the soil of Arcadia,

followed by certain others" whom he guided in the ways of

survival (Graves 1955:I:27). Graves, in his exegesis of

this myth, emphasizes that in the pre-Olympian religious

system neither gods nor priests were present. Instead,

one finds "only a universal goddess and her priestess,

woman being the dominant sex and man her frightened vic- tim ••• Eurynome ('wide-wandering') was the goddesses' title I

as the visible moon, her Sumerian name was Ihau {'exhalted~ I dove'), a title which later passed to Jehovah as the Cre- 1 ator. It ;;as as a dove that Marduk symbolically sliced I Tiamat in two at the Babylonian Spring Festival when he

I J 47

r ·-····---.. -- ··--- ...... ------··------·----·--·-·-·--··--- ·------·------...... ----·-----·····------~ about 3500 B.C." However, the term "Pelasgian" ultimately

came to be "applied to all pre-Hellenic inhabitants of

Greece" (Ibid.). One element that Graves did not comment

upon is that, despite the goddess having the role of

creator, the first human is still a male - Pelasgus.

The best known of the Greek creation myth is one

in the supremacy of the gods of Mt. Olympus could not

totally undermine the primacy of Mother Earth. The

my'ch begins by admitting that:

at the beginning of all things Mother Earth emerged from chaos and bore her son, Uranus as she slept.

Gea (i.e., Mother Earth) and her son Uranus ('sky'} mated

and from this mating she brought forth several children.

Uranus took a rather intense dislike towards his off-

spring. He particularly detested the Cyclops, whom he

cast into Tartarus. This action caused Gea to encourage

her other children, the Titans, to revolt against Uranus.

My children, you have a savage father; if you will listen to me, we may be able to take vengeance for his evil l outrage: he was the one who started I using violence (Hesiod 1953:22). I The Titans, led by Cronus, and with the support of their I mother, overcame Uranus. Cronus, before casting out his I I I father, first castrated him I grasping his genitals with the left hand ! (which has ever since been the hand of I i. ------·----- _____) 48

r··~---·"--·---··-~····· -~-~-~=-~::~·:;·~:-:~~-:~·~::=~~:1~~-~~:~-:ing--th:~~-----! ; and the sickle too, into the sea (Graves t 1955: I: 37). I l,l But, as the myth goes on to relate, the drops of blood i 1 l I resulting from the castration wound i fell upon Mother Earth and she bore the I three Erinyes, the furies who avenge crimes of parricide and perjury (Ibid.).

I Graves (l955:I:32) states that the "patriarchal myth I of Uranus" and his marriage to Gea "records an early I Hellenic invasion of Northern Greece". He goes on to I suggest that Uranus obtained his position as "First I Father" through association with the pastoral god Varuna, one of the Aryan male trinity whose earthly followers con-

stituted the Aryan invading force. Thus these warriors

could assert that Uranus/Varuna had begat the indigenous

tribes they found in the area of their conquest, while

at the same time conceding to these native peoples that

Uranus/Varuna was the son of Nether Earth (i.e., Gea).

It is also interesting that the title 'Uranus' is a mas- I culine version of 'Ur-ana' (queen of the mountains'), the i i goddess in her orgiastic midsummer aspect. I l Regarding the Erinyes (or Furies), Graves (1955:!:37) l explains that they are the "Triple goddess herself". l! I During the yearly (or semi-annual) sacrifice of the king, I whose body and blood were thought to assure the growth of I plants, the priestesses would wear Gorgon masks as mina- I tory devices "to frighten away profane visitors.". Graves l 49

------~------"------, adds that the testicles of the king/victim were, in all ! l likelihood, thrown in·to the sea in order ·that the fish

be encouraged to proliferate. Graves (1955:!:38) goes on

to state ·that the "vengeful Erinyes are understood by the

the same sickle; but it was their original function to

avenge injuries inflicted only on a mother, or a suppli-

cant who claimed the protection of the Hearth-goddess"

(Italics mine.). As will be shown below, the Erinyes in

Aeschylus' Oresteia are the upholders of matriarchy and

maternal supremacy.

Cronus, upon usurping his father's throne, mated

with his sister Rhea. Bo·th Uranus and Gea had prophesied ! 1 that Cronus, ·too, would be dethroned by one of his sons.

In order to circumvent this impending loss of power,

I Cronus proceeded to swallow each of the children Rhea I I bore him. Rhea, as her mother before her, was utterly

I enraged by such paternal callousness. And, again like j her mother, made use of trickery in order to save her

curren·t unborn, Zeus. At his birth she gave him to the

I care of his grandmother, Gea; l by whom he was carried to Lyctos in Crete, and hidden in the cave of Dicte on the Aegean Hill. Mother Earth left him there I! to be nursed by the Ash-nymph Adrasteia I and her sister Io, both daughters of Melisseus, and by the Goat-nymph Amaltheia. His food was honey, and he drank Amaltheia 1 s milk, with Goat-Pan, his foster brother I (Graves 1955:I:39). ! 50

Meanwhile, Rhea had wrapped a large boulder in a blanket and offered it to the unsuspecting Cronus in place of

Zeus. Upon reaching manhood, Zeus became cupbearer to his father, although Cronus remained ignorant of their actual relationship. Wi·th the help of Metis (wisdom) and his mother, Zeus prepared a mixture sufficiently potent to cause Cronus to disgorge the children he had swallowed. These included Demeter, Hades and Poseidon.

They came forth from their fathers' stomach unharmed and, in gratitude to Zeus, requested that he lead them in a war against their father and his allies, the Titans.

The war continued for ten years. Then, on the advise of his grandmother, Gea, Zeus sought out the Cyclops, still imprisoned in Tartarus, and took them as allies.

The Cyclops thereupon gave Zeus the thunderbolt as a weapon of offense; and Hades, a helmet of darkness; and Poseidon, a trident (Graves 1955:I:40).

With the help of these weapons and the Cyclops, Zeus and his brothers defeated Cronus and the Titans, where- upon the latter

were banished to a British Island in the fartherest West (Ibid.).

Zeus and his siblings then proceeded to divide the earth and its environs amongst themselves, with Zeus, however, becoming "master over gods and men."

Brown (1953:17) in his introduction to the Theogony insists that "the direction of the cosmic evolution is

.. ------·-----~- -~.,·····------~------·------·---- ' 51

not only from a natural to an anthropomorphic order but

also from the primacy of female to the primacy of the

male." He goes on to insist that "this idea is contained

in the contrast between Mother Earth at the beginning,

who produces children without male partnership, and mates

with her own sons, and Zeus 'the father of gods and men'

at the end." The periods between these two events are

characterized by the undermining of the father through

an alliance of the Mother and her sons. Brown's comments

seem to imply that the usurpa·tion of the female principle

by that of the male is an evolutionary progression and

thus the female principle is of lower status ·than the

male. As will be discussed in the following section, the

feminists reject ·this kind of interpretation.

Harrison {1955) was perhaps the first to recognize

clearly that the Olympians were a relatively late de-

velopment in the Greek religious system. Her research

led her to the opinion that their advent, with its well-

defined masculine bias, superseded but did not completely

eliminate an older, more female oriented stratum of

belief. According to Harrison (1955:261), the many resi-

dues of goddess worship which were still to be found

throughout a world ruled by Zeus reflected "another con-

dition of things, .•. the state of society known by the

awkward term matriarchy, a state echoed in the lost

Catalogues of Women, the Eoiai of Hesiod, and in the

. -. . . . - •·- .• , ••·~~-·- -. ' ··~·----• •·· --•--··~·••· •··---·••~-•--·--•----~--.. •·-·••·-•· -~------~- ~- _.. __ ._ . .,, --•· ••• • • • ·•·- ·• ··-•·-····--·---••••••- ...... , .....- ..-~-•¥•• -·• _..,______..._. ~~---•·-·-·"<------n•-•• 52

t-~·~--~~....-·~-- ~•¥•·-"- •»---• ••·• ••••• «~··•·••--·-•··~~-~· --••·• "•• ~-·-·------~- -·•· •~~-·--- -~------~---~--. ----~-·-·~-.._..___.._. __ i Boeotion heroines of the Nekuia."

The Great Goddess, as Creator of all life, was cer-

t.ainly not a Greek, nor even a Cretan development. The

question as to where or when ·the idea of the earth as

mother-crea·tor evolved is not susceptible to any defini-

tive answer. Nor is the life style of the periods in

which the Goddess reigned easily depicted. Platon (1966:

182-183) in his discussion of archaeological evidence

from the Knossos site in Crete notes that "Goddesses, as i the productive deities, were considered the most impor- l tant" of the Minoan pantheon. "In art they are portrayed! .•• as Queen of the Wild Beasts, Kourotrophos (Nursing I Mother of Youths), Mother and Daughter, the Goddess of

the Serpents, and the Goddess of the Doves. The figure

of a child or youth sometimes shown with the Mother God-

dess, has been identified •.. as the son and lover of the

goddess."

Feminist writers, and in particular Davis (1971),

see the presenceof goddess cults throughout such exten.;... l1· ! sive areas of Old World civilizations as support for th · I assertion that a matriarchal period did occur in the evolution of culture. Davis agrees that Sir Arthur Evans' was correct in his insistence that, despite the many rep-

resentations of the Goddess found in various parts of the

Old World, what was being worshipped was a fundamentally J j monotheistic deity, a female principle. And, as Platen -- L------53

---··-··-··------~------, (1966:183) points out, "This interpret.ation has also been 1 confirmed by later tradition, and echoes of it are found I in the cycle of the Hellenic mystery rites; further evi- I l ! dence for it has lately been found in the Creto-Mycenean I tablets." I I James (1960:105), in discussing the controversy I I be-tween those who see the multiplicity of names and forms l I as indicative of a plurality of goddess cults and those who insist that. the many goddesses are actually One, tends! I I towards the latter's argument. I In favor of regarding the Minoan Mother I as a universal deity is the fact that in Crete she occupied virtually the same position as her counterpart in western Asia. She -.;;v-as the source of all vegeta-tion and mistress of all the earth produced, the goddess of nature in all its aspects, 'the star of the sea', the lady of the nether regions, and later acquired martial qualities, in all of which aspects she was comparable to her later manifestations. Her consort ! I assumed the role of the youthful male god I I as her satellite, personifying the transi­ tory, seasonal sequence of vegetation like ! Adonis, Attis, Tammuz, or Baal. !

It appears, then, that beginning as early as the Neoli th- 1 I ic and extending through the Bronze Age in the Old World, there existed a belief in an all-encompassing and singu- I lar deity worshipped under a multiplicity of forms and l names. From Sumer, where she was known as Inanna, Queen

of Heaven, through Assyria under the title Ishtar and on

I into Egypt where her epithet was Isis, the Great Goddess l_ ruled suprern~ One finds perhaps the most lyrical recog- 54

r-·------·-···...... ------· ---··-· -·-··--_...... ,. ______~·-~ i l nition of Her many appellations in the following passage l j from The Golden Ass (Apuleius 1954:238-239). I l I am Nature, the universal Mother, mistress of all elements, primordial Ii child of time, sovereign of all things l spiritual, queen of the dead, queen also of the immortals, the single manifestation of all gods and goddesses that are ••• though I I am worshipped in many aspects, known by countless names, and propitiated with all l manner of different rites, yet the whole round earth venerates me. The primeval Phrygians call me Pessinuntica, Mo·ther of I the gods; the Athenians, sprung from their own soil, call me Cercropian Artemis; for the islanders fo Cyprus I am Paphian Ap­ rodi te; for ·the archers of Crete I am Dic­ tynna; for the trilingual Sicilians, Sty~ gian Proserpine; and for the Eleusinians their ancient Mother of the Corn. Some know me as Juno, some as Bellona of the Battles; others as Hecate, others again as Rhamnubia, both races of Aethiopians, whose lands the morning sun first shines upon, and the Egyptians who excel in anci­ ent learning and worship me with ceremonies proper to my godhead, call me by my true name, namely Queen Isis.

their claim of the existence of a matriarchy as well.

Davis also views the changes in myths relative to the

position and function of the gods and goddesses as re-

flective of changes from matriarchy to patriarchy. Both

of these interpretations are open to serious question. 55

------~-·~-·-···~----~--~------~ \ see both how and why certain feminists utilize myth to l I support their contentions. I I Davis (1971:7) states that "the deterioration in the I l s·tatus of women went hand in hand with the Dark Ages that i I I l followed this patriarchal revolution as it ·moved slowly ~

I westward from the Near East, reaching Western Europe only 1 I in the fifth century of our era." She goes on to insist that among the Celts, women maintained their position of

dominance until the final collapse of Rome. Since it is I I not possible ·to deal with all the mythic systems of the I I Bronze Age, let alone those of the later Celts, the stress! j has been primarily on the Greeks. I 1 Regarding changes in the position of the goddesses I within the Greek hierarchy of deities as a result of his- j 1.~ l I torical factors, Campbell (1965:7) states that it was

"the violent entry of the late Bronze and early Iron Age I nomadic Aryan cattle herders from the north and Semitic sheep herders from the south into the old cult sites of lI the ancient world" which brought about a worsening in lI l! the status of the Great Goddess. The influx of these I tribes with their masculine gods and their patriarchal l I attitudes had a corrosive effect upon Her sovereignty. Graves (1955:I:43) states, regarding the entrance

of patriarchally oriented tribes into Greece, that the

"brotherhood of Hades, Poseidon, and Zeus ••• seem to

represent three successive Hellenic invasions, commonly 56

.: - ,,. ~ r-~--­ ______---~-----··-~ l i l known as Ionian, Aeolian, and Achaean." 'l'he already j I l l present followers of the Great Goddess were apparently I 1 j j able to assimilate the peoples and subordinate the dei- j ties of the first two groups. However, the Achaeans l l l and their gods overwhelmed both the Goddess and her I l i children. I 1 One of the Greek myths which is often cited as l I represen·ting a change from matriarchy to patriarchy is l I the one concerning Metis, Zeus, and Athene. "In earliest I Greek Mythology the creative principle is Metis - female I intelligence." Metis "creates the world without a male I partner. Originally she was all female" (Davis 1971: 34). J I According to Hesiod (1953:78) Zeus' first royal consort was Metis {'Wisdom'), the wisest of gods and I men. But when she was about to give l birth to bright-eyed Athene, he de­ I ceived her with specious words and l trapped her by a trick, and swallowed her and kept her in his belly. He did l this •.. so that the kingship should not pass from Zeus to another of the gods. l For Met.i,s was destined to produce child­ ren wise beyond their station - first the bright-eyed Tritonian goddess, the equal of her father in power and prudent

I1 understanding, and secondly an unruly I son, the future king of gods and men. But Zeus forestalled her and kept her l in his belly, where she gives him I I knowledge of good and evil. Thus Athene, with whom Metis was pregnant at the time Ii I Zeus swallowed her, was born from her father Zeus' I skull. To Harrison (1955:648) the "strange denaturalized ~------~------~----~------57

!, ...... __ A_.._..__.__ . ' __ - ...____...... ,... ·- ...... - ~ ...... ,.,...... -·-~-"""--...... lJ j birth of Athene from the brain of Zeus" is a theological 1 i effort to eliminate any matriarchal tinge from the

'bright-eyed' goddess. Athene was "originally one of

the many local Korae; she was •.. the 'maiden of Athens', ! born of th,e earth as much as the Kore of Eleuses." The 1 I Kore or Maid was part of the evolution of the Goddess i t from her role as 'Lady of the Wild Things' within a I culture whose predominant means of subsistence was hunt-

ing and gathering to that of the Mother-Goddess within

a socie·ty whose mode of existence was based primarily on

agriculture. "It was mainly in connection with agri-

culture ..• that the Earth-goddess developed her double

form as Mother and !'laid" (Harrison 1955: 272). Thus

l Athene was initially the 'Maiden' facet of the Goddess I in her dual form. A secondary and later development was that of Mother-Daughter. Persephone, for example,

was viewed mythologically as the daughter of the Great

Mother in her role of Demeter ('barley-mother'). However,

Harrison stresses that the Mother-Daughter representation

was never as fundamental as that of the Mother-Maiden.

To return to the Zeus-Metis myth, Graves (1955:46) I I (see also Harrison 1955 and Campbell 1965) interprets l I Hesiod's version as a "dogmatic insistence on wisdom as I a male perogative; hitherto the goddess alone had been wise." He goes on to assert that the mythic claim of

Zeus • fati)ering of Athene can be glossed as the Ac~aean' s J 58

r··------··-···· ..... -· ·---·-----·-·· ····-·--··-----·------. ···-·- ...... -·------·------~ determination to have the Athenians" acknowledge Zeus'

patriarchal overlordship."

Athene ultimately is made to betray the matriarchy

and her role as apostate is most vividly illustrated in

I Aes-chylus' Oresteia Trilogy. Here Aeschylus has her ! unequivocally advocating the male-principle in the person I of her father - Zeus. Briefly, the Oresteia plays con~ I cern Orestes' murder of his mother, Clytemnestra. This I act was precipitated by the earlier killing of Agamemnon, I ! Orestes' father, by Clytemnestra and her lover. The I theme of the plays is blood, guilt and punishment.

I Orestes, having killed his mother, seeks and obtains I purifica·tion and a purging of his guilt from Apollo. I However, ·the Erinyes (or Furies) - who represent the

Goddess in Her triple-formed and dark visage - refuse

to recognize the cleansing of Orestes' crime. "Thus

the feud between mother and son becomes a conflict bet- I ween the gods of heaven and those of the underworld." IApollo is pitted against the Erinyes. "The Furies l I appeal to the Fates ... matriarchal spirits of primeval

man~ The only rights that the Furies recognize are those

I inherited through the mother. They ignore the bond of I matrimony and therefore are not concerned with the murder I l of Agamemnon by his wife" (Corrigan 1965:20). The I following scene, taken from the last of the three plays,

•1.· is the focal point of the Trilogy. Orestes has at last :

L ------~ 59

r------~-~------~------1 ! abandoned himself to the gods; they are to decide his I 1 guilt or innocence. Apollo 1 who is defending Orestes, I tells the Furies that Zeus had commanded him (i.e. Apollo} I to force Orestes to murder Clytemnestra. The chorus of ·the Furies, in reply to Apollo's admission of his par- I

ticipation in the crime states: I

Chorus (The Furies) Your argument is, then, that Zeus commanded you to charge Orestes with this criminal act regardless of the bond between son and mother?

; i Apollo I It is not the same, to murder a great i king, a woman too to do it, and not l in open fight like some brave Amazon ••• I I I Chorus l According to your argument Zeus gives t precedence to the father; yet Zeus it I was who cast into prison his own father I Kronos, judges take note and ask him to ! explain. Apollo The mother is not a parent, only the nurse of the seed ~vhich the true parent, the father, commits to her as to a stranger to keep it with God's help safe from harm. And I have proof of this. There can be a father without a mother. We have witness here, this daughter of Olympian Zeus, 'l',vho sprang armed from_ her father's head, a goddess whom no goddess could have brought to birth •.. Therefore, out ot goo¢lwill to your country and your people I sent this supplicant to seek refuge with you, that you, Athene, may find in him and his a faithful ally for all time to come (1965: 116-120) •

Later, at the close of the trial, when the votes of the 60

r·------·------·------.. ------~------·----- .. ·-----. ------·i , l l l i Athene casts the deciding vote in favor of absolving ! Orestes of his blood guilt and offers the following I I· rationale for doing so. I l Athene No Mother gave me birth, and in all I things save marriage I commend with I all my heart the masculine, my father's I child indeed. Therefore, I cannot hold l in higher esteem a woman killed because I she killed her husband (1965:121). I It is not difficult: to see why the above is so

frequently offered as evidence of a patriarchal revo-

lution. It is an extremely intense statement of male

supremacy. And, the believers in a matriarchy cry, why 1 would such an obvious paean to the masculine be necessary! I had not the remnants of an older matriarchal system not

existed? n~~~--~-·~..- i --~-----· ~------·----~...... ~ .... "'-~I ' MATRIARCHY AND WO~lAN: A FEMINIST VIEW l In the preceding section some selected myths of I l l li Greek origin were presented as presumed evidence of a I gynocratic stage of culture. Now it is possible to l I l proceed to a more direct and inclusive examination of I i I the feminist positon and its relationship to the matri- .\ I f i archy. What is of singular importance is that feminists l are rein·terpreting bo·th the feminine stereotype and the I matriarchy in order to present their own definition of I womankind, just as patriarchal authors use it to justify l I patriarchal institutions. They are both utilizing j Malinowski's (1962) functional interpretation of myth. I That is, feminists and non-feminists are using "myth I I J l ::dc::::e:~o::ds::~ort their belief regarding what was I

I Forfreedom (1972: 30) emphasizes a time when the role 1 11 s of woman and the values which she espoused offered a . l 1 I different and more rewarding existence than has since I

I ::::i::t::::b::~re:~h:n:h:::::e:::::ct::ti:::r:::i:o I 1 I \vomen today, is that women in a matriarchy had self­ ! j respect, self-determination in all ways, ·and all women

.,1 at all levels were assured that the society truly was

governed in their direct interests." lI Steinem (1973:2-3) summarizes those values which I are thought to have been characteristic of the matri- l______~~~----~------~~--~------~

61 62

! ·--··------···--"· ----·--······-···-.------·----·····----·-·---··--.. --·---···-···--··-----·------·------,

I archal periods of history and which feminists "are now I trying to in·troduce into the mainstream: strength and I self-reliance for women; peacefulness and esteem for

human life; a diminislunent both of 'masculine' aggression

and of the belief that violence is the only way of solv-

ing conflicts." Feminists also include such qualities

as hurturance, empathy, emo-tionality and intuitiveness

1n their description of values attributed to woman which

are of value to socie·ty.

Mitchell (1972:61-62) reflects the belief that

under gynocratic rule both the individual and the group

responded positively to the inherent superiority of

feminine values. In the "original matriarchy, women had

very few children, or none, were free to roam because

the earth belonged to all women, there being no boundary

stones, ..• fences, .•. or division of property ••. when women

controlled everything they shared everything but their

control, and no man suffered loss." It was "woman's

spirit that was really free."

There is a strong Utopian element in the above

descriptions. This idea of the matriarchy as a kind of

'Golden Age' can be seen even more clearly in the wri-

tings of Davis (1971), who offers the most extensive as

1 I \vell as ·the most radical commentary on the matriarchy. l j In discussing the work of Davis it is difficult, .if not I impossible, to-elucidate the process by which her com- .______63

r·---- .. ------· ------~---- ·------···----··-·------·------·------

1 pJ.eted portrait of ancient womankind is made. Her work shows both a lack of certain logical connections and

frequent juxtaposition of seemingly disparate elements.

She also tends to use sources of questionable merit,

paiticularly those whose theoretical stance has long

since fallen in-to disrepute. However, the purpose of

this paper is not an exercise in the ability to blow

down a house of straw. Despite some of her more radical

concepts, which the majority of feminists would eschew

(e.g., the belief that men are genetic "freaks", who

were produced by some damage to the genes), her writing

does offer important insights into the feminist attitude

toward the matriarchy.

Making use of popular themes of the Science Fiction

and Fantasy genre, Davis begins by asserting the reality

of the Atlantis legend, that is, the belief that prior

to all recorded history there existed a civilization of

extraordinary attainment and sophistication. This

legendary society, first suggested by Plato (1965) in I 1 ·the Timaeus, was more than the equal of even our most l modern technological nations in all its endeavors - art, I science, philosophy, and so forth. Davis (1971:63) quotes~ I Hesiod' s description of the "Golden Age" as expressing ... { the fundamental qualities of Atlantis. It was "the time } I of. paradise on earth when •.. there were no gods" and "men I lived without labor, never growing old, laughing much, l-'--· I 64

!"------··-----·-····-·· ... ·---> ·------···--·-··-········ ·-- ···-·------· .. . ····· ---·····------···------··------, l I and to whom death was not more terrible than sleep."

Davis (1971:64) sets her own particular imprint on the

Atlantean legend by contending that it was a society

dominated by women. After the fall of Atlantis - the . ! ! second or Silver age took place. It was "the time of ! \ t.he powerful gynocracies that distinguished the revived i ! l civilization after the passing of the lost civilization. j. I This last age lasted many thousands of years, ending only i ! in historical times." It consisted, according to Davis,

of the period of efflorescence of the major Bronze Age

cul·tures such as Sumer, Egypt and Crete.

Mellaart's (1967) findings based upon his excavation

of Catal Huyuk are cited as an example of the exemplary

peaceful nature of gynocracies. Davis (1971:78) states

tha·t "Hellaart' s report ••• shows that Catal Huyuk ••• was

not only a matriarchal but a Utopian society. There had

been no wars for thousands of years. There was an or-

dered pattern of society. There were no human or animal

I' sacrifices; pets were kept and cherished. Vegetarianism l! prevailed, for domestic·animals were kept for milk and I wool- not for meat." She adds "There is no evidence I of violent death. Women were the heads of households I and they were reverently buried, while men's bones were I thrown into a charnel house. Above all, the supreme i i 11 1 deity in all the temples was a goddess. 1 I_----- _J 65

,.,------~----· .. ·: ...... ------·- ·------.--- .... __ ,. __ ., _____ ·-·------·-·-·--·-, It would appear that Davis is taking far greater I latitude in her reconstruction of the evidence from the

excavation than Mellaart himself. It fact, having read

Mellaart, I found considerable distortion in Davis' re-

porting. Mellaart (1967:184-186) does indicate the

apparent importance of the goddess in the religion of

Catal Huyuk. But he also adds that the male principle

was far from excluded. "Even if his role is strictly

subordinate to hers, the male's role in life appears

to have been fully realized ..•. The birth of a god

is frequently portrayed in the shrines and once in a

statuette. Differences in age distinguish between the

god as son; ••• the hunter in a leopard skin cap or the

consort-husband, who is shown bearded and seated on his

symbol, the bull."

Mellaart (1967:202) also suggests. that the "crea-

i ·tors of Neolithic religion" might have been women.· He I states that in an "early Neolithic society like that I of Catal Huyuk one might biologically expect a greater I I proportion of women than men and this is indeed reflected lll in the burials. Moreover, in the new economy a greater number of tasks were undertaken by the \vomen. " .. He goes il on to point out the importance of women in this socie·ty, · l particularly in the religious sphere. But at no point I does he intimate that it was matriarchal in form. He j states that though "the cult of the goddess was adminis- i L. j 66

r-·--~------·--·------·------·------·--1 l tered mainly by women, ... male priests are by no means !

l[·

excluded'' (1967:203). Regarding the absence of violence, ;

all Mellaart (1967: 225) notes is tha-t "few people seem l

to have been more than forty years old. There are no

individuals among the burials that showed signs of vio- I lent death .•. childbirth, fevers, and pneumonia are sug- l

gested as the main causes of death". He adds that

I "these observations are_subject to confirmation." Again, l . regarding the existence of a matriarchial form of social ! I organization, Mellaart (Ibid.) insists that little can 1 I be said concerning the "Neolithic social structure as ·the!I I I excavations have revealed only the religious quarter.,.- I l I He does point out, however, that the "position of \vomen I was obviously an important one in an agricultural soc- ! I iety with a fertility cult in which a goddess was the I principal die·ty." I I In terms of this thesis, the crucial element. is no·t I I I the degree of distortion Davis (1971) may or may not have! I introduced into Mellaart's findings. The essential point I -to be considered is the direction and emphasis she gives I to these findings. What is being suggested by her des- I I cription is the prevalence of certain values - such I I values being intimately associated with women and their I control over a society. This theme of a specific type I lI of feminine value system is, as has already been seen, found throughout the work of the feminist writers on the I'·------I 67

r-··------··------·-----·--·-·- ---···------. ·---·--~------··-----·-·-~

ll l subject of the matriarchy. Davis (1971:66} is net alone l in her suggestion that under the hegemony of the Great l Goddess "earth enjoys a long period of peaceful progress."! l Chesler (1973: 19) mirrors these though-ts in her 1

insistence tha·t "Despite enormous variations," the essen-! tial spirit of matriarchism vms characterized by "a I superior female alliance with both ·the material-natural I universe and the supersensory or spiritual universe." I

Carabillo (1974:I:l) states that "In 7000 B.C. mat-

riarchal civilization, by all the accounts being pieced

together from archaeological digs •.• appears to have been

near-Utopian in many respects .•.. It was based on coop-

eration, rather than competition, was nurturant and

constructive, rather than exploitive and destructive, ! and there is no evidence of violence or war." Carabillo I

makes an interesting point regarding the dual aspect of 1

the Great Mother and its relationship to both feminists 1 and the matriarchy. She notes that the "Hinoan double I axe is never found in the hands of a male god. Always

and everywhere it is the androgynous symbol of gyno- cratic nations." One of the halves of this axe {both I halves are in the shape of a half moon) represented "fer-1

tility, benevolence, happiness; the other half •.. sym- y. ·- bolized death, destruction and famine" (Ibid.). She

goes on to emphasize that such symbolism indicated the ·.. . . . I dual natur~ -.good and evil, life and death- inherent l.___ ---~------.,._,.,.. _____[ 68

(~~.-·~----~·- ----••·- ~-~·· ·-•••-·-~- ·-----·----·~-···~~·-••w-••~-·--·-··---·-··~-- •--~-•• --••·--~---·-·--·-·--~-·~·-·------•--'"•-,•.-.••~ --.... ----~-.1 1 in the "One Female Deity". "Unlike patriarchal religions"! l in which there is an all-benevolent male Deity pitted I

agains·t "the all-evil Devil", matriarchal religion 11 ack- Ii nowledges tha·t ·the potential for good or evil exists in -~ the dei·ty and in each of us. r·t permits no evasion of \ I responsibility for the world as we have made it'' (Ibid.). I i There are some important implications in Carabillo'sl l 1 analysis. Her emphasis on the androgynous aspec·t of the I l matriarchy is of particular interest in ligh·t of feminist i ~ beliefs. Feminists are attempting to synthesize mascu-

line and feminine values so as to elimina-te the insis-

tence on each sex having a particular and limited set of

behaviors assigned to it.

Regarding the duality intrinsic to the Great Hoth·er,

there is a further aspect which should be noted. The

Great Mother originally represented both the Creative

and Receptive principles. She was creative in the sense

of 'bringing forth 1 and, ini·tially, bringing forth out l of nothing. But She was also receptive in that she ! ' received both the gifts and the burdens of humanity. This dual nature of the Goddess is in contrast to the I I current view of writers like NeQmann (1954) and Hender- l ! son {1963) that women are inherently receptive. Such I I receptivity, by itself, connotes only passivity. The I l creative factor has been assigned to .the masculine.. sphere!I and is consid-ered a fundamentally masculine attribute. j ;"------·------·------__ j 69

r------·----····------~------.. ·-·------·--·------··-.. ------~ ; I i' l ~ Women create only to the extent that:: t.hey 'bring forth • j I children. I As one reviews the feminist writers, another and I I I perhaps equally dominant theme appears. The myths 1

which are seen as indicating the existence of a matri-

archy and its overthrow are also perceived as providing

testimony to woman's historical plight. The masculine

world, while continuously reinforcing the subordinate

position of woman and her inherent inferiority, is

secretly afraid of her~ Mythic themes affirm the belief

that men, on some level of consciousness, have, since

they first usurped her power, feared that women might

reassert her lost dominance. Thus one finds the feminist

wri·ters accusing the masculine world in general and the I academic world particularly of distorting woman's "true"

I1 nature and her contributions to the growth of civilized ! hu.rnankind. "The implacability with which Western man I has ••• retaliated against women •.. serves only to confirm I the truth of her former dominance" which, since that f ( j time, "man has felt compelled to stamp out and forgetn I (Davis 1971:17). '·;-_ History, as written by men, is considered one more I expression of the atte:..11pt of t:,he dominant group - men

I[ I I to repress the subordinate group women. The historical! i stages are vietved as fundamentally sexist in their con- I I . struction and highly colored by a st~ng masculine b 1.as. Il l., ______j 70

i--·----.--.------·- ·-·-----·------·-·-·------···------~--. ·-~------·------~ l I I l I ' fvlc.tnkind "has rewritten history with ·the conscious purpose l I of ignoring, belittling, and ridiculing the great women I of the past, just as modern historians and journalists

seek to ignore, belittle, and ridicule the achievements

of modern women" (Davis 1971:181). It is not difficult

I; l to see in the above quotes, ar.d those which follow, how i in·tense the feeling is on the part of these writers that

I woman has been deliberately excluded from any role in I I history. This attitude is reminiscent of those of Black Americans who also felt, and with equal validity, that I I their participation in the development of this nation I i I 'i.vas ignored. I Mankind, say the feminists, must deny the fact of

its original subordination vis a vis womankind. It is

necessary for men to repress any 'facts' concerning

former pattern of existence. Accordingly, women have

been forced to assimilate the male version of truth "as the whole of human reality." Art, Science, Philosophy, I I Politics, History, and Myth "are all based on male views, ;

male interests and male interpretations ••• From Herodotus'

to Will Durant's histories, the main characters, the main I viewpoints and interests, have all been male. Women havel I l been considered additions or exceptions in hi~tory" (For-' i Ii freedom 1972:1). I Myths have been inverted, evidence has been ignored I I ! or destroyed, theories pertaining to the matriarchy have J L-~- 71

many ages .. 4 . I knew reversal was part of the old patriarch's teeh n1que •. ~ l Omission another clue, subterfuge another technique." I I I Forfreedom (1972:29) again emphasizes the distrust and l disillusionment feminists feel towards the acad&~ic~

scientific community. Male "historians ..• scientists and •. interpreters of the past have favored or dismissed the

concept of the matriarchate according to their own needs

and emotions. Even the men who favor the matriarchies

have used fictions, stereotypes and male-favoring rea- soning in reaching their conclusions." I . I Berger (1973:xvi) in her introduction to Dlner's 1 work, points out that the lack of interest in the subject I l I of the matriarchy is due to "the fact that until now a ) primary masculine intellect and spirit have dominated

I in the interpretation of society and culture - whether l this interpretation is carried out by males or females. I I l I find disregard of this factor, especially in more l recent literature, truly amazing." l It would appear that by proclaiming the ascendancy I of feminine over masculine values, as well as accentu-

I ating mankind's deliberate misrepresentation of feminine l I 'nature' and accomplis:b..ments, the feminists are attemp- I l ting to offer some compensation for the vast inequities ; L.--·-· --...-J 72

~------·~·~----~--·--·---··-----·------~-----·-·-·----·------~------~------·--- 1 i i l..vhich woman has suffered. Particularly, these writers i· i I are endeavoring to alleviate a portion of the harm done I j to woman's self-esteem by her seemingly inconsequential I i role in the development of civilization. It might be ! I more correct to state that they are offering her a role I for the first time in contradistinction to her absence I i l in the great bulk of historical writings. One might find.

the feminists• claims, at first glance, somewhat exag- I j gerated. However, any perusal of the literature, whether i . it be history, anthropology or some related sphere, will

suggest that their complaint is not without foundation.

Until recently, woman's major contribution to life on

this planet was seemingly her ability to provide it with

male Homo sapiens. With rare exceptions, woman has been

noted for little else than her womb. Thus by offering

her a new and purportedly more valid description of her

past, the feminists are striving to alter woman's own

perception of that past. Reed (1972:8) accents the importance of women in

the evolution of culture by pointing out that "it was

women who developed all the early industries." In her

1975 work, Woman's Evolution, she also insists that the

"early history of half the human species - womankind -

has largely been hidden from view. To bring it to light

~ . r~quires a reinvestigation of anthropology wher~the role and accomplishments of.women in prehistoric society are

---·------'------~~ 73

rnined ••. and that our sex was once the organizers and

le.aders of social life, should heighten the self-con- i l fidence of women who are today aspiring for liberation" ! I (p.xviii). i l Davis (1971:68) also asserts that during the rnatri- archy "cities are built, law and justice are instituted, i I crops are planted and harvested, cattle are domestica-

I I ted ••. fire is discovered and utilized, the wheel is in- I I vented, ships are first constructed, the arts ••• are be-

gun."

One senses in the feminists' appropriation of so

many major contributions to the feminine realm a long

I I overdue response to woman's desperate need for a sense of accomplishment, and it also bespeaks an effort to I reclaim some of those achievements men have long arro- I gated to themselves. There is also a strong rejection of the stereotype of woman as the pliable, submissive i mate of the active and creative male. ! A sense of women's fundamental worth, a recognition I of their significant accomplishments, a role in history, i I and a denial of certain characteristics foisted upon I I them by others - in this case men - permeate the writ~ngs I I of the feminists. As mentioned earlier, one can see ~nJ I---·------·------74

: --·------.. '" ······--·--·-.. ·-··---·--···-··------·----·-···------'------··----·------.-----~ I ! 1 i such an emphasis reflections of other minority groups I in their initial struggle to free themselves and acquire ' a position of some authority within the power structure.

Such emerging groups frequently develop their own myths,

legends, and heroes. What is particularly fascinating

abou-t the Woman's Movement is that they have turned to ancient and established myths in search.for theirs. I Despite their agreement on the existence of a matri-1 i archy, the feminist writers do not present a unanimous

front in regard to details. In fact, with the exception I of Davis (1971), there are surprisingly few particulars given concerning its. functioning. Even Davis is ulti- I ma·tely rather vague in noting such things as institu- I tions, values and economics. She spends considerably I more space on evidence suppor-ting the existence of the I matriarchy than on descriptions of its nature. And she I l often ignores or 'reinterprets' evidence from other I sources (e.g., Graves, Bachofen) when it does not concur I with her view of the major characteristics of the matri- I l archy. ! For example, Graves (1955) proposes thatmale sac-

rifice was an integral part of religious worship during

Il · the gynocratic period. Davis (1971) denies that there l was any form of human sacrifice during this stage. She

I1 also insists that the matriarchy was a universal phenom- L__ ~--- 75

ermn, encompassing all of the major civilizations in the

Old World during the greater portion of the Bronze Age.

I:t1 this she concurs with Bachofen {1967) \vho also be­

.1 lieved it to have been a universal stage of cultural

evolution. Berger (1973:xiii), another feminist writer,

disagrees with Davis' assertion. In her introduction

to Diner's work, Berger states that though "it is clear i i that matriarchal societies once existed ••• in great num- I bers, especially in the Hediterranean area, this does I not in itself imply their universal existence either in l I themselves or as a stage of cultural evolution." j The feminists in general appear to recognize that I de·tailed statements regarding the nature of the matri- I archy must, at this time, be considered merely specu- I lative. Forfreedom (1972:30) argues that matriarchies I "apparently have existed on every continent (except the Arctic regions) on this planet." However, she goes l ! on to add that "specific details - matrilinial descent, I and inheritance, female monopolization of the important l economic tasks, female monopolization of political power,

or religious predominance by women and goddesses ~ do I not necessarily define the world-wide, millenia-long i I phenomenon of matriarchy. Nor do they present a co- l herent picture of the causes for the rise and fall of l__ suc-h--a s--o.cial form" (Ibid.). ' I Forfreedom (1972:32) also recognizes that certain j -ll -~-.,.--· __..J 76

r· .... -----···------·-····-·------···------·-- --· -·-···-··- -·· --·-····------c·------· --.l I of t.he matrlarchal• groups "were not as peaceful or life- l,l

orien·ted as others." The more war-like or aggressive

groups may have, ultimately, given rise to the so-called

Jl..rnazon tribes. Forfreedom (Ibid.) does sugges-t, however,

that the "Amazons were often peace-oriented until attack-

ed by men. In every account, mythical or 'historical'

of the male conquest of matriarchal groups, these groups

are pictured as small in number; with much artistic and

industrial knowledge, but without weaponry or, at least

any to match tha·t of the conquerors." Her description

i ! I of the increase in violent activity on the part of cer- l I : tain matriarchal groups can also be examined in the con- I l j text of Graves' (1955) view of the Amazons. He suggests I I i that the Amazons were actually priestesses of the Great I Goddess who were forced to take arms in order to prevent

the take-over of their cult centers by invading patri-

I archal tribesmen. Unfortunately, any success they may I I have had in this endeavor was, at best, t~~porary. I Certain of the feminists' disagreements '¥vi th the I ! non-feminist supporters of the matriarchy have already

been noted abovew While they agree with Bachofen's

(1967) assertion that the matriarchy was a universal

stage of culture, they differ with his assessment of

. ~ l· gynocracy as being inferior to the patriarchal period I which followed it. Nor do they in any way concur with I L Neumann's {1954) view of the matriarchal age as the chi~dl 77

~-··>o--• ------~-~------·····-··········---·-·····--·-·· ···--·------~ I ! hood of humanity; a time when consciousness - to Neumann ! I ! I I I ! I I ! l I cracy ·than the non-feminist supporters. And feminists l I I are primarily concerned with emphasizing the tremendous I l benefits which accrued, particularly for women, during i I ! the presence of the matriarchy.

Until this point, only those feminists who are

I convinced of the existence of the matriarchy have been

I discussed. However, not all feminists are convinced ! l that a matriarchal period took place. Before continuing I i·t might prove worthwhile to note tha views of those who l I l form the 'loyal opposition'. Figgs (1970) insists that I when "one talks of the matriarchy of pre-history on~ can

_,~I . mean little more than this: woman, particularly as child-

bearer, was important, and descent was naturallymatri­ l _lineal because that was the way it was first understood.

I We still find matrilocal marriage in the Old Testament, I t "in Samson's marriage to Delilah, for example."

IL------78

r----- ...... >W-.... ______..,...__...... _.... ____.._,;_. ______.;.. __,... ~--.~_____...,_~

j i' Millett (1971:110) snms up the controversy over the ! l 1 existence of a matriarchal period by pointing out that i j I! ' "Despite the possible fascination of the dispu·te, and l 1l I l its logical attraction as an etiological problem in ~ I sexual politics, it appears to be incapable of resolution ~ j I I since the information from pre-history which might settle ;.

I it is inaccessible." Earlier in her work Millett (1971• l j 27-:-28) does argue that, if one does insist on postulating l i I a stage prior to that of patriarchy then 11 such a social I order need not imply the domination of one sex which the I ~ term 'matriarchy' would, by its semantic analogue to ! patriarchy, infer. Given the simpler scale of l~fe and I l t..:."le fact that female-centered fertility religion might l I be offset by male physical strength, pre-patriarchy !

might have been fairly equalitarian. 11

Janeway {1972:49) begins by taking a negative l position relative to the possibility of a gynocratic

stage and then hedges slightly. She states that both I the idea of the matriarchy and the belief in its idyllic I qualities "belong equally to the realm of myth." How- I ever, she adds that "whether or not a syste."n of r:natri- J · archy ever actually existed, there is no doubt that

women were seen, in the dim past, as supreme guardians

and givers of fertility." In the controversy over

·.whether early humankind understood the role of the 79

1-··-·-~------~----·~-~~~.,..~---~--,..-~.~~-----~-·-· ~ ------~----~---- ...... ·- ··-·~--"·- _...._.._~------~------·--..------~---·-·-----t I I i in ccnception, Janeway (1972:50) sides with those who l insist they did not. Thus, she infers from this that I I I women, in prehis·torical times, would have been endowed .;l wit.h considerable magical force. "The myth of female i I magical power certainly had its origin in a period when

the mother was the only parent, when her impregnation

was easily attributed to the wind, or the dew, or an

ances-tral spiri·t, as ·to the man she lived. with."

Bamberger (1974:265) is another feminist who doubts

the existence of ·the matriarchy. She states that what

"is known about the past and present conditions of

primitive and early peoples does not augur well for any ; future discovery of a clear-cut and indisputable case of I matriarchy." Bamberger (1974:268-269) uses Malinowski's I {1962) functional approach to the interpretation of myth and she criticizes Bachofen's (1967) "erroneous

view of myth as history". To Bamberger (1974), the I myths associated with the matriarchy and its overthrow ! do not reflect an actual historical stage or event. I Instead, she views them as a "charter" supporting or I l ! reinforcing a particular social system or setof beliefs. l Finally, one of the greatest living feminists, De Beauvoir (1961:64-65) completely rejects the notion

1· of any gynocra·tic era in human history. Regarding the .I I ' various types of evidence, whether from myth, archeology I l__ or h~-=tory, which have resulted in such an assertion, 1 80

:------.. ··- - -·-·-··-- .. ------~-----·--·-- --- ·- ... ·------.. ·------·------~---~

!l she states: I I I I .,

'·.· These facts ... have led to the supposition that in primitive ti.mes a ... reign of women existed: the matriarchy. It was this hy­ pothesis .•. that Engels adopted, regarding the passage from the matriarchate to the patriarchate as 'the great historical de- j fea·t of the feminine sex.' But in truth 1 that Golden Age of Woman is only a myth. 1, To say that womanwas the Other is to say that there did not exist between the sexes I a reciprocal relation: Earth, Mo·ther, i Goddess - she was no fellow creature in I' man's eyes; it was beyond the human realm that her power was affirmed, and she was i therefore outside of that realm. Society 1 has always been male; political power has ,~ . always been 1n the hands of men (Italics mine.).

A.s can be seen from the above comments, there is obvious

disagreement 'within the ranks'. However, despite the

absence of unanimity among feminists as a whole, or even i between those who do accept the existence of a matri- I archal stage of some sort, there appears to be sufficient! I material, both historical and mythological, to have kept I ~~e idea of matriarchy alive. Whether such evidence is I only ·the result of historical errors, such as Herodotus' I ! (1921) misunderstanding of the cultural practices he was I observing, is, of course, still open to doubt on bo.th j sides. l The ways in which the feminists have described I the matriarchy and the meaning which it has for them I ! 1 have already been indicated. However, the ma·triarchy ,. . has other implications for feminists which should also i___ _ 81

.,. --~ ~-···· .. ·~-·-·· ... ~ --- -·---·------~------~·--·--····----·--~--~------·----- .... -~ ·-----.-. ·-.-- ··---·------·-·----.--·-----l

be noted. Firs·t, the feminist: posi·tion provides a form I of self-vindication for womankind. That is, by empha- I sizing that woman has been oppressed for centuries

1 because men fear her resurgence, her possible reasser- I I t.ion of her ancient perogatives, the feminists have fur- I nished a new way of viewing woman's status. Her subor- l dinate role, her ancillary position in a male-dominated I culture, is now more comprehensible. As Chesler (1972: I 24) states of the masculine fear of women, "we do not l· fear something that doesn't exist •.• that never happen- I I ed •.• never could happen anymore than people forbid or

I regulate something that no one wants anyway." Thus 1 I 'ivoman, by warrant of her past supremacy over man no 1 l longer need see herself as a mere appendage to man. I All that she has suffered, all that she has been de- I prived of, all that she has been denied participation l in, is made understandable. Vindication is offered

I her in the form of necessity. It was necessary that l she be continually perceived as submissive, uncreative I and foolish because, in truth, she is the very opposite

of this.

I Self-esteem is another important facet of the

feminist's assertions regarding the matriarchy.· By

pointing out all the many contributions made by women I at an early and crucial period in human history, woman I 82

r··---. ------~------~------.. ·------.... ------·-----· ------·---·------~ ; I l lS made to feel a greater sense of vmrth. She is capable l I I of more than childbearing; she is more than a womb. The I· feminists have said, in essence {and in reali-ty), here ! I is your history. You ware once far more than just an I It was not simply a play on vlOrds

part of the title of her work.

I The \.Jord 'dominant' also has a special significance I to the feminist writers when used in relationship to

\voman' s status in the matriarchy. Women have, for so

' long and in so many ways, had the epithet 'submissive' I associated with their behavior that it is difficult for I them not to believe that they are innately so, despite I the fact that such a description has little or no basis I in physiology and is ill defined. But women are aware I (they can hardly help being so) that this term has a I i negative evaluation when considered in relation to its I I ! opposite - dominant. Thus by stressing that in an I I earlier epoch, women were creative, energetic, and

dominant, the feminists are helping to build a new I vision of woman. Feminist history also provides another important

I element for the Woman's Movement. It contributes to the support of the group by emphasizing the concept of 1 sisterhood'. In their insistence that women at one I time did band together to for:qi the nucleus of institu- •------~-- -~---'------· :_j 83

r--~--~·-'---~,.·------.. -·•-c·-~~------·- . ··--··· --~------···-----. ·-· -- --·-··- -·------~------...... --·~------~·---1 I t.ions which ccntrolled the culture i·tself, the feminis-ts 1

are reinforcing the idea that it is possible for women

to form strong ties amongst themselves. This is an im-

portant point since, according to certain male scholars,

Tiger (1969) for example, women are incapable of forming

any kind of regulated, well-functioning group. But, say

the feminists, this is not so. Look at your past! Look

at what you once accomplished! According to Reed (1972),

-..vomen were responsible for the development of agricul-

ture, early medicinal use of· herbs and plants, textiles,

and pottery - even the discovery of fire - to name only

a few of feminine innovations. Surely this is sweet

music to women who, prior to such writings, had to be

content with merely having a finer and more moral nature f I than man - a dubious and ra·ther banal honor at best. The low self-esteem which has, in part, kept woman I from attempting, irt an organized way, to change her I I social status is overcome by such heady ideas. And it I is difficult not to at least consider that low self-

I esteem in conjunction \V'ith high anxiety levels have I impeded women in their attempts at upward striving. Cer- I l I ta.inly studies such as those done by Maccoby (1966) and

Mischel (1966) among others would tend to indicate that I I this might be so. l ! I The feminist assertion of the existence of the I matriarchy often appears to come close to a system of l'------· 84

r.. ------.... ------~------~ I I l belief. And an integral part of this belief is the

possibility of future attainment predicated upon 'past

glory.' Woman can once more achieve self-determination.

She can become an important part of the current power

structure. In fact, say the feminists (whether or not

they subscribe to a belief in the matriarchy), woman

must do these things. Self-determination, of course,

demands that woman, in some way, gain power. Feminist I writers such as Davis (1971) and Forfreedom (1972) make I clear that it was once woman who determined the direction! I and characteristics of culture. It was once woman who

controlled the major institutions; religious belief,

political organization, education, family structure -

all these and more were within woman's purview. Thus,

say ·the feminists, woman must once again if not usurp

then at least share in those decisions which determine

the ultimate fate of our society. And the intense be-

lief that woman once did so provides a basis for her

insistence that she do so once more.

I l______r------··········-- --"·----·-·------··------·-----·------·--····'"·------~---...,..-----l l I I SUNivJ.l\RY AND CONCLUSIONS I ! j i The intent of this thesis has been to provide a j cr.i·tical examination of the feminist position on the

matriarchy and the values, myths and symbols associated I

with it. In the initial section Bachofen (1967), the

19th century scholar who first proposed the existence

of a matriarchal stage of culture, was discussed. Bach-

- and began the institution of marriage. He insisted

that during the matriarchate woman dominated both family

and state. However, he offered little detailed infor-

I ma·tion regarding the actual functioning of society, its ! I organiza·tion, major institutions, and so forth~ It was I

also no·ted that despite Bachofen' s praise of woman's con-~

tribution to human development, he remained convinced l

that pa-triarchy was a necessary and higher stage ·in cul-

tural evolution. I In the next section the Jungian position on the I matriarchy was considered. It was found thatthe Jung-

1 ians viewed the matriarchy as a period of undeveloped l ego-consciousness. Like Bachofen, they saw the advent I of patriarchy as a necessary evolutionary-development. j Also included in this section was a discussion of various l_:yt;hs_':'_nd _symbols associated with the matriarchal period,

85 86

was suggested that the Jungian interpretation of these

mythological and symbolic elements resulted in a highly

stereotyped and incomplete picture of woman. It was

, noted that the feminists are attempting to reinterpret l the feminine archetype, as described by the Jungians, I I by their emphasis on matriarchal values.

The following section considered certain of the

myths used to support the position of bo-th feminist and

non-feminist believers in the matriarchy. Some of the ! problems in the interpretation of myth were also in-

dicated. It was shown that the fe~inists interpret

myth in a primarily historical fashion. That is, they I ' view myth as a reflection of actual events. However, I the feminists are also using myth to support their I rein-terpretation of the feminine stereotype, just as the I· I patriarchists use myth to reinforce their beliefs in the I I superiority of patriarchal institutions. I In the final section a more detailed examination i of the feminist position -..vas offered. Their description I of the matriarchy and its values, an important factor in I the feminist stance, was discussed. It was shown that l I the feminists believe that womankind has been delib- 1 !j erately excluded by historians and anthropologists. j Feminists insist that \voman has made great contr{butions L~ ____;, _____.___, 87

~--:- :~,~- g~:::-: ~-:~-~:~-i::t:o~-:=~-:~~-:~hese -llav:-::en --l l I ! ei'cher ignored or usurped by men. Those feminists who ! · disagree with a belief in the matriarchal stage of cul- ture were also cited and the reasons for their disbelief l I was noted. Lastly, it was shown that some feminists use I the matriarchy to provide a sense of vindication, self- I es·teem and group support to the Women's Movement.

One of the most importan·t conclusions to be drawn

is that feminists are using the matriarhcy and the myths l I associated with it as a "charter" for reorganizing social I institutions. Feminists not only view myth as indicating I what took place in the past (history) but as pointing out! what should occur in the future (social change}.

Another point to be made concerning the feminist

posi·tion is that there are certain implications in the

structure of the matriarchy which run counter to the

feminist philosophy. The Women's Movement is concerned with eliminating ·the existing power structure in which i a few control and the vast majority follow. Davis (1971) ,, I on the other hand, emphasizes a hierarchal arrangement

with women at its apex. It is somewhat.anomalous to

J have feminists searching for a woman-dominated stage of I civilization when many of those same feminists disavow I the type of society in which only a small minority,

in this case men, maintain their ascendancy. Of course,

as discussed in the concluding section, there are other l 88

f------·-··-· ------~------·-----·--~-----·------~·--·~-~---·-~-~~

i I l, factors wh1ch· must be taken into consideration in any I

I explanation of the feminists' search for the matriarchy. I Also, even if such a stage of culture were found to have I l -I ! existed it would not necessarily form a counterpart to I I the type of social organization which many of the fern- 1 inists put forth as ideal.

The feminist writers reject, in varying degrees, 1 I I the findings of psychology, history and anthropology. l l I I They see history, for example, as it has been written I thus far as a 'conspiracy of silence' in which the aim I has been to suppress and control women by denying them I any status as important participants. Mitchell (1972:62) I ex:presses this sentiment by stating that in "history we I have only one clue" (to the events concerning women), I "whatever his is, hers is the opposite." She adds that I our history "is of tremendous importance to us or (man) would not have tried so hard to conceal .•. it." I I With a belief in this type of deliberate activity I on the part of mankind, everything becomes suspect and

I uncertain. While there is a healthy el~~ent in remaining I I skeptical about the findings of others, it can be carried I to profitless extremes. Some of-the feminist writers discussed in this work were often inclined to ignore or

denigrate evidence wh.ich were counter to their beliefs. I I A more positive approach would have been to express their L_doubts__ ~_s to_ its authenticity while examining its_ merits 89

'5""'"._ .....--.,.._-~----·-"------... --...... --- ..... ~----· .. -,.___~-----..--~ l I !~ rela·tive to alternative explana·tions. However, it must 1ll ! be added that the mythologists whom they chose (or re- • i '. i jected) are no less vulnerable to the same general cri- 1 Ii l 1 t:i.cism. l In addition to an extraordinary suspicion towards l much of the evidence of history, anthropology and related I j fields, there is a disposition towards exaggeration. l Davis (1971) is most obvious in this area. Her book

l contains so many ques·tionable assertions that it would I require a work at least equally as long to refute them. !I A book of such dubious veracity militates against the I ~vomen' s M.ovement, in that it makes it vulnerable to I i ridicule. Those few in the academic world who might l I conceivably have some interest in reopening the question

of ·the matriarchate would fine it of doubtful value;

the rest would dismiss it as nonsense. That works such I as Davis', despite their outrageous posturings, do offer I I I ! I an antidote of sorts to the social science's massive l lack of concern about the role of women in society is I neither understood nor of any particular concern to the I majority of academicians.

Steinem {1972:4) perhaps expre~ses best the feelings

of many women towards the possibility that such groups"

- ,.. . ' as Amazons and such soceities as matriarchies really

•existed- even in face of the absence of any strong

evidence. As she so eloquently puts it: 90

r------"------·------"------C---~------______:__, l. I i All doubts paled beside .•• the sweet I I vengeance .•• of reading about a woman 1 j who was strong, beautiful, courageous, 1 i and a fighter for social justice... 1 1 who strode forth stopping wars and 1 killing with one hand, distributing 1 largesse and compassionate aid with ', another .•• a Wonder Woman.

Steinem is here describing her feelings upon rereading

some of the old (i.e., 1940's) Wonder Woman Comics,

whose heroine 'itvas an Amazon of unusual (not to say i 1 super-human) ability. Her feelings are shared by many l \vomen \vho see in the discovery of the matriarchy a I "sweet vengeance" for the uncountable insults, the I j continual negations, the snideness, ridicule and con- I descension they have endured in their attempt to share I : fully as members of the human community. l I I i i ! I

i I l L~-----'---=-- J BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aeschylus I 1965 The Oresteia Trilogv. Translated by George I Thompson. New York, Dell Publishing Company, Inc.

Apuleius 1958 The Golden Ass. Translated by Robert Graves. New York, The Pocket Library.

Bachofen, J.J. 1967 t>1yth, Religion and r.-Iother Right. Translated by Ralph Ha_ nheim. Princeton;· New Jersey, j Princetqn University Press. < tl(.i.;J) ''g, .. " · ·' ·.•.,u· " , . , • I , l,., ' , l).. .,, "'.~ ' · , - H -~.iV-''·krt\.. ':1'"·') · nw i'lyh< <:rl f.lo.:trlo.r£.,1\'f, VJV!y r,€.>; htLl~.. 1~1 ·1?(>nn-l-;fiif .).: ':J.~J.:fy, 11'1 . t ! •W' ., \ I . .. (J il- .... ~ " .t d ' . ' ' "'"' i1 "' £:< c ! "•• .J Berger, B r J...ge t <..~ '·.~ ·'f·Pr .,.;~,..<212':.t.:.l,'1Si~~:Jl.r~~;~.~~K~)E"~tf-JJ( € ~~ "f)Y t-e" kAtt!f}]~:f·d ff r t ft, ~t2.~~_l~.~t_OJ -1ttlf·[:,l U ,

1973 In traduction to Helen Diner, Mot~ers and Amazons. ~'~":. 1 Edited and translated by John Philip Lundin. l Sit:.nr-c)nt(q1·i. Garden City, New York, The Anchor Press. .pp,JVJ"".;l&U

Bro-vvn, Norman 1953 Introduction to Hesiod, Theogony. New York, I The Babbs Merrill Company, Inc. l Campbell, Joseph 1959 The Masks of God:Primitive Mythology. London, I The Pitman Press Ltd. l1 Campbell, Joseph I

1 1965 The Masks of God: Occidental Mythol~. London, Il , The Pitman Press Ltd.

Carabillo, Toni l 1974 "A New Feminist Symbol for a Ne\-7 Stage of Free­ dom." :tn Graphic Communications Herald Vol. I I No. 3, Los Angeles Graphic Communications Con­ l sultants. I Chesler, Phyllis l 1972 "The Amazon Legacy: An Interpretive Essay." I In Wonder Woman. New York, Holt, Rinehart I and Winston and Warner Books. I l Corrigan, Robert W. ! 1965 Introduction to Aeschylus, The Oresteia Trilogy. l Transla-ted by George Thompson. New York, Dell · I Publishing Company. I • • l Dav1s, El1zabeth Gould . L_ ____l971 _The First Se~..:-~~~ ti~o~e,_ Penguin Books, In_c_. __

91 92

1961 Ihe Second Sex. Translated by H.M. Parsh1ey. ------~··------·- 1\re\V -~{c>·r:k., Bant.um BC)llk.s ..

Figgs, Eva 1970 Patriarchal Attitudes. Greenwich, Conn., Fa\vcet.t PublicafloTI.s~ L:lG.

Forfreedom, Ann. 1972 "The r'Iatriarchies and Their Fall. 11 In Women

Grc:nn:~s, Robert 1957 'I'he Gr-eek Hvths ~ Vol. :r, Nevr York, -~------·------.---:!-~-George Braz1ller, Inc.

New York,

iic:..rJ::-~-LE:.5():n, J'ana 1955 Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion. N~:;;,~v ·~zorJ( .._: .. ~f'7fer·i-zfrai1130()l~s-~~------7--·------~-~· .... -:---.c,,______.. __ ... _

1Iend.e~er3o.n., :;·t.;~;.:~:p}r- I:l·oi .1968 ~-,.l~.. ncic~:nt: r'lY'"tJ1s and j>_~_c)r.:ie.~·l1 1"'1anqH In N:an and His S:ymbols. Edited by Carl G. ~ruii·~~:-~i-;-::··._, ..,_..J..J....,... .; "lq Co. .,... § .1.-'"'C'J.~.""

rier·odotus 1921 The Histories. Translated by A.D. Godley. 'tTew-York: ;_r1:;~ Bobbs Herr:LL1 co., Inc.

Jamas, E.O.

1960 Tl1e Ancient r;ods o Putnum's I J'aneway r :t~liza:Oath 1959 JYian's World: \•loman 1 s Place: A Study in Social ~IYH1ology:--·-frew-3:·ork;-DE::;-rl-:Pub1is1)':Lng co:~. Inc~ I

J·ung, Carl Il· . 1959 The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. rnra:;:.;<. 'l ,+.;-;;;-rn•·. ,:;-·~F·--~u:';1T-~.,-)\J· .,.., r .. vo··-;,1,..------·. l.. J.~....:.. ,..1,."-'- ._.._1,_.&, ~i ..,. .... ~ ¥ \...,..,. .1.-L \..>...... ~ .1.. '\,;;. '~'~ -l. JJ. J~ )" . l Bolling-2n Fo•1ndation Ir..c. · i I I· Jung, Carl I I 196H Analytical Psychology. Translated by N81lork, ·-:rran.theon Books. l Hul~J I 93

.Tung, Carl 1969 Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth o_f Things Seen in the Sky. Translated by R.F.C. Hull. New York, The New American Library, Inc.

Maccoby, Elanor E. 1966 "Sex Differences in Intellectual Functioning." In The Development of Sex Differences. Edited by Elanor Maccoby. Stanford, Stanford University I Press. I Malinowski, B. , 1962 Sex, Culture and Myth. New York, Harcourt, li Brace and World. Hellaart, James I 1967 Catal Huyuk. New York, McGraw-Hill. Millett, Kate 1971 Sexual Politics. Nevl York, Avon Books. I Mischel, Walter l 1966 "A Social Learning View of Sex Differences." I In The Development of Sex Differences. Edited by Elanor Maccoby. Stanford, Stanford University Press.

Mitchell, Bernice 1972 "Secrets of Genesis." In Women Out of History: A Herstory Anthology. Los Angeles, Published I by Ann Forfreedom. l

Neumann, Erich 1954 The Origins and History of Consciousness. Il Translated by R.F.C. Hull. New York, Bollingen Foundation Inc.

Plato 1965 Timaeus. Translated by H.D.P. Lee. Harmonds~ worth, Middlesex, England, Penguin Books Limited.

Platon, Nicolas 1966 Crete. New York, The World Publishing Company.

Reed, Evelyn 1972 "Primitive women." In Women Out of History: A Herstory Anthology. Los Angeles, Published " by Ann Forfreedom.

Reed, Evelyn

1 1975 Woman's Evolution. New York, Pathfinder Press, ··---·------·--.::::=:..:_..I Inc. 94

I~------·· ---·------·--···------·- ----· ----·---.. ----- ·- -· ·-- --- ··------·------1 ! I • Scharer, Mark · l 1960 "'I'he Necessity of Myth." In Myth and i•lyth- j' I making. Edited by Henry A. Murray. New York, I j George Braziller, Inc. I l I 1 Seyffert, Oskar 1 1 1964 Dictionary of Classical Antiquities. Edited l I and Revised by Henry Nettleshlp and J.E. Sandys~ I I Cleveland, Ohio, The World Publishing Company. I Steinem, Gloria I 1972 Introduction to Wonder Woman. Ne\v York, I Holt, Rinehart and Winston and Warner Books. I I Tiger, Lionel I 1969 Men in Groups. New York, Random House. l l I I

I

t I I L __. ~------_j