The Sexes in Science and History An inquiry into the dogma of woman's inferiority to man — Background and Themes

A Two-Part Argument: Biology and History

The book is divided into two main lines of evidence: biological development and historical record. In the preface to the first edition, Gamble describes her method: after studying written history and extant tribes, she concluded by 1882 that the female organism is not inferior, but lacked detailed proof. She then turned to naturalists’ work on human evolution, particularly Darwin. The revised edition adds evidence from the intervening twenty years, which she claims is in strict accord with her earlier conclusions. This dual approach—drawing on both natural science and historical ethnology—allows Gamble to argue that women’s early supremacy was a natural condition, later undermined by the ascendancy of “egoistic or destructive agencies” over constructive forces.

Engaging with Bachofen’s Theories

Gamble devotes considerable attention to the Swiss jurist Johann Jakob Bachofen, who argued for an early matriarchal stage in human society. She credits him with recognizing “the true bias of the female constitution” but criticizes his confusion over the relative positions of women and men at the outset of human life. According to Gamble, Bachofen mistakenly believed that women gained power through religion and then lost it through the same source—citing the oracle of Apollo declaring the father the real parent. She contends that Bachofen’s error stems from a misconception of women’s early importance: women were not degraded initially but held a position of dignity. This critique shows Gamble engaging directly with a major contemporary scholar, refining his evidence to support her own thesis.

The Role of Sexual Selection and Maternal Instinct

Gamble draws on Darwinian sexual selection to argue that among lower orders, the male’s structural changes were driven by efforts to please the female. She extends this logic to early humans: “the appetites developed within him were still largely controlled by her will.” The maternal instinct, she writes, produces sympathy—a cohesive quality that conserves the highest interests of the race. This constructive force, she implies, was dominant for thousands of years, with women as “the ruling spirits in human society.” The excerpts suggest that Gamble uses evolutionary theory not to justify male dominance but to argue for an original female supremacy based on biological and social functions.

A Revised Edition with Updated Evidence

The 1916 edition is explicitly a revision of The Evolution of Woman (1894), and Gamble emphasizes that new evidence from the intervening decades confirms her earlier work. She states that “each and every fact connected with the biological and sociological development of the last twenty years” supports her conclusions. This claim positions the book as a living argument, responsive to scientific progress. Readers should note that the excerpts do not reveal the full range of evidence Gamble marshals—only that she incorporates both biological data and historical accounts of matriarchal societies. The concluding chapters, she says, set forth the results of the separate development of the two diverging lines of sex demarcation, suggesting a detailed analysis of how male and female traits diverged over time.

Gamble’s book is best approached as a sustained argument that weaves together evolutionary biology, ethnology, and historical criticism. Readers should pay attention to how she uses Darwinian concepts to challenge rather than reinforce gender hierarchies, and how she engages with scholars like Bachofen to refine her evidence. The preface’s emphasis on the revised edition’s updated material invites a comparative reading with the earlier Evolution of Woman if available, but the excerpts here provide a clear sense of her thesis and method.