Before proceeding to the consideration of homosexuality I propose to give a brief account of contemporary misogyny, in order to avoid confusing these two distinct phenomena under one head, and also to avoid making the male homosexuals, who are often erroneously regarded as “woman-haters,” responsible for the momentarily prevalent spiritual epidemic of hatred of women. This would be a gross injustice, because, in the first place, this movement has in no way proceeded from the homosexual, but rather from heterosexual individuals, such as Schopenhauer, Strindberg, etc.; and because, in the second place, the homosexual as such are not misogynists at all, and it is only a minority of them who shout in chorus to the misogynist tirades of Strindberg and Weininger.
The misogynists form to-day a kind of “fourth sex,”[491] to belong to which appears to be the fashion, or rather has once more become the fashion, for misogyny is an old story. There have always been times in which men have cried out: “Woman, what have I to do with you? I belong to the century”;[492] times in which woman was renounced as a soulless being, and the world of men became intoxicated with itself, and was proud of its “splendid isolation.”
Of less importance is it that the Chinese since ancient times have denied to woman a soul, and therewith a justification for existence,[493] than that among the most highly developed civilized races of antiquity such men as Hesiod, Simonides,[494] and, above all, Euripides, were all fierce misogynists. In the “Ion,” the “Hippolytus,” the “Hecuba,” and the “Cyclops” we find the most incisive attacks on the female sex. The most celebrated passage is that in the “Hippolytus” (verses 602-637, 650-655):
“Wherefore, O Jove, beneath the solar beams
That evil, woman, didst thou cause to dwell?
For if it was thy will the human race
Should multiply, this ought not by such means
To be effected; better in thy fane
Each votary, on presenting brass or steel,
Or massive ingots of resplendent gold,
Proportioned to his offering, might from thee
Obtain a race of sons, and under roofs
Which genuine freedom visits, unannoyed
By women, live.”[495]
In this passage we have the entire quintessence of modern misogyny. But Euripides betrays to us also the real motive of misogyny. In a fragment of his we read “the most invincible of all things is a woman”! Hinc illæ lacrimæ! It is only the men who are not a match for woman, who do not allow woman as a free personality to influence them, who are so little sure of themselves that they are afraid of suffering at the hands of woman damage, limitation, or even annihilation of their own individuality. These only are the true misogynists.
It is indisputable that this Hellenic misogyny was closely connected with the love of boys as a popular custom. To this we shall return when we come to describe Greek pæderasty.
Among the Romans woman occupied a far higher position than among the Greeks—a fact which the institution of the vestal virgins alone suffices to prove. Among the Germans, also, woman was regarded as worthy of all honour.
The true source of modern misogyny is Christianity—the Christian doctrine of the fundamentally sinful, evil, devilish nature of woman. A Strindberg, a Weininger, even a Benedikt Friedländer, notwithstanding his hatred of priests—all are the last offshoots of a movement against the being and the value of woman—a movement which has persisted throughout the Christian period of the history of the world.
“If I were asked,” says Finck,[496] “to name the most influential, refining element of modern civilization, I should answer: ‘Woman, beauty, love, and marriage’! If I were asked, however, to name the most inward and peculiar essence of the early middle ages, my answer would be: ‘Deadly hostility to everything feminine, to beauty, to love, and to marriage.’”
The history of medieval misogyny was described by J. Michelet in his book “The Witch.” Since woman and the contact with woman were regarded as radically evil, it followed that in theory and practice asceticism was the ideal; celibacy was only the natural consequence of this hatred of woman; so also were the later witch trials the natural consequence. Therefore to this medieval misogyny, in contrast with modern misogyny, which represents only a weak imitation, we cannot deny a certain justification. The misogyny of the middle ages was earnestly meant; but it has become to-day mere phrase-making, dilettante imitation, and ostentation. In contrast with the utterances of the modern misogynist, the coarse abuse of women by such a writer as Abraham a Santa Clara has a refreshing and amusing character.[497]