Such an arrangement must have been of immense advantage to the women. Under the new order, a wife married to one of these young strangers would hold a position of considerable power, that hitherto had been impossible. We have seen that the home was made by the group-women, and must have belonged to them; but so far, the continuance of a daughter in the home had entailed the acceptance of her father as a husband; the only way of escape being by capture, which--whether forced or, as I hold, aided by the girl’s desire--sent her out from her own family as a stranger into a hostile group. Now this was reversed, and the husband entered as the alien into her home and family. The following observation of Mr. Atkinson in this connection must be quoted, as it is in strong agreement with my own view-- “As a wife who had not been captured, who, in fact, as an actual member of the group itself, was, so to speak, the capturer, _her position in regard to her dependent husband would be profoundly modified_, in comparison with that of the ordinary captive female, whereas such a captive, seized by the usual process of hostile capture, had been a mere chattel utterly without power; _she, as a free agent in her own home, with her will backed by that of her brothers_” [why not, I would ask, her sisters and her mother?] “_could impose law on her subject spouse_.”[39] [39] _Primal Law_, p. 256. In the foregoing sentences Mr. Atkinson affirms the fateful significance to women of this new form of marriage. I am in whole-hearted agreement with this opinion. I glean here and there from the wealth of Mr. Atkinson’s suggestions, statements which indicate how nearly he came to seeing all that I am trying to establish. Yet, I am compelled to disagree with his main argument; for always when he touches the woman’s side, he falls back at once to consider the question in its relation to the males as the only important members in the group. I do not, for instance, accept his view that the captive wives were “mere chattels.” They could not, under the conditions, have been without some considerable power, even if it arose only from the sexual dependence of their owners upon them. Much more significant, however, is Mr. Atkinson’s view regarding the authority of the wife in these new peaceable marriages. He sees one point only as arising from such a position, and finds “a psychological factor of enormous power, now for the first time able to make itself felt, in the play of sexual jealousy on the part of the wife.” She would now “impose law on her subject spouse, and such law dictated by jealousy would ordain a bar to intercourse between him and her more youthful and hence more attractive daughters.” Now, I do not deny that such a factor may have acted, for the incentive to jealousy arises always from individual as opposed to collective possession. Still I do not think jealousy can