Modern Marriage.
1.--Marriage as a Profession.
“Marriage and the family are the foundations of the state. Whoever,
therefore, attacks marriage and the family, is attacking society and
the state and undermining both.” Thus exclaim the defenders of the
present order. Monogamic marriage as has been sufficiently shown,
is the outcome of the system of gain and property that has been
established by bourgeois society, and therefore undoubtedly forms
one of its basic principles. But whether it is adapted to natural
needs and to a healthy development of human society is a different
question. We will show that this marriage, which depends upon the
bourgeois system of property, is a more or less forced relation,
having many disadvantages, and frequently fulfilling its purpose only
insufficiently or not at all. We will, furthermore, show that it is
a social institution which is and remains inattainable to millions
of persons, instead of being a free union founded on love, the only
union suited to nature’s purposes.
John Stuart Mill says in regard to modern marriage: “Marriage is the
only real bondage recognized by law.” According to Kant’s conception
man and woman together constitute the perfect human being. Upon
a normal union of the sexes the healthy development of mankind
depends. Satisfaction of the sexual impulse is essential to the sound
physical and mental development of both man and woman. But man has
gone beyond the animal stage, and so is not contented by the mere
physical satisfaction of his sexual impulse. He requires intellectual
attraction as well, and the existence of a certain harmony between
himself and the person with whom he enters into union. Where such
intellectual harmony fails to exist, the sexual intercourse is
purely mechanical and thereby becomes immoral. Men and women of
refinement demand a mutual attraction that extends beyond their
sexual relations, ~and that shall have an ennobling effect upon the
new beings which may spring from their union~.[48] The fact that
such a standard of ideals fails to exist in countless present-day
marriages caused Varnhagen von Ense to write: “Whatever we saw about
us both of marriages already contracted, and of marriages about to be
contracted, was not likely to implant in us a good opinion of such
unions. On the contrary; the entire institution which is supposed
to be founded on mutual love and respect and is instead founded on
anything but that, seemed coarse and despicable to us, and we fully
agreed with Friedrich Schlegel, whose opinion on this subject we
found expressed in the fragments of ‘Atheneum’: Almost all marriages
are concubinages; they are at best remote approaches to the true
marriage, which should be a blending of two persons into one.” This
is quite in keeping with the views of Kant.
The joy in having progeny and the responsibility toward same makes
the relation of love existing between two persons one of longer
duration. A couple desirous of entering marriage should therefore
carefully consider whether their respective traits of character are
suited to their union. The answer to this grave question ought to
be unbiased. But that is only possible by the exclusion of every
other interest that has no direct bearing on the purpose of the
union, satisfaction of the sexual impulse and propagation of one’s
own personality by means of propagation of the race, guided by a
certain measure of insight that controls blind passion. As these
conditions fail to be observed in a tremendous number of cases in
present-day society, it is evident that modern marriage frequently
fails to fulfill its true object and that we are not justified in
regarding it as an ideal institution.
~How many marriages are contracted on an entirely different basis
than the one described above~ cannot be demonstrated. The parties
concerned like to have their marriage appear different from what
it really is. Here a condition of hypocrisy presents itself, such
as no previous social period has known in a similar degree. The
state, the political representative of society, has no inclination
to institute investigations that would cast an unfavorable light
upon society. The state itself marries its officials and servants
according to maxims ~that cannot be measured by the standard that
should constitute the foundation of true marriage~.
[48] “The sentiments and feelings with which husband and wife approach
one another undoubtedly have a decisive influence upon the effects
of sexual intercourse and transmit certain traits of character upon
the being that is coming into existence.” Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell.
“The Moral Education of the Young in Relation to Sex.”--See also
Goethe’s “Affinity,” where he distinctly shows the effects of the
feelings that prompt two human beings to intimate intercourse.
2.--Decline of the Birthrate.
Marriage, in order to realize the purpose of nature, should be a
union founded on mutual love. But this motive is rarely met with
unalloyed under present conditions. To the great majority of women,
marriage is a means of livelihood that they must obtain at any cost.
On the other hand, a great many men regard marriage from a purely
commercial point of view, weighing and considering its material
advantages and disadvantages. Even those marriages that are not based
on selfish, sordid motives, are frequently marred and broken up by
the harsh realities of life. Only rarely those hopes are realized
that were held by a man and woman prior to their marriage. That is
only natural. For in order to lead a contented married life not
only mutual love and respect are required, but ~economic security~
as well; that is, a certain measure of the necessities and comforts
of life in order to satisfy the needs of man and wife and their
children. Material cares and the cruel struggle for existence are
destructive to marital contentment and happiness. But these material
cares increase with the increasing number of offspring; in other
words, ~the better marriage fulfills its natural object, the greater
become these cares~. The peasant, for instance, takes pleasure in
every new calf that his cow brings forth, he cheerfully counts his
suckling pigs and relates the good news of their arrival to his
neighbors. But he looks somber when a new baby is added to the number
of children that he feels able to support without care--not a large
number, forsooth--and he looks doubly somber if the newly-born babe
has the ill fortune of being a girl.
We may say then that both marriages and births are controlled by
economic conditions. This is especially evident in France where
agriculture is carried on by a division of the land into small lots,
the products of which are not sufficient to support a large family.
The famous, or notorious, French system of having no more than two
children, a system that has developed into a social institution in
France, is the result. In many provinces the population is accordingly
almost stationary, while in others there has been a marked decline.
The same results that the methods of farming have produced in the
rural districts, have been produced in the cities by industry. In
fact, the birthrate is declining even more rapidly in the cities.
The number of births is constantly decreasing in France, in spite of
the fact that the number of marriages is increasing. This is true
not only of France, but of the majority of civilized countries. This
fact points to a development produced by our social conditions that
should make the ruling classes think. In 1881, 937,057 children were
born in France; in 1906, 806,847, and in 1907, only 773,969. In 1907,
163,088 fewer children were born than in 1881. It is a noteworthy
fact that the number of illegitimate births did not decrease. There
were 70,079 of these in 1881; during the period from 1881 to 1890
they attained their highest figure, 75,754, and in 1906 there still
were 70,866. The decline of the birthrate then was confined entirely
to the legitimate births. During the entire century a decline of
the birthrate was noticeable. The following table shows the number
of births for every thousand inhabitants of France during more than
a century:
1801–1810 332
1811–1820 316
1821–1830 308
1831–1840 290
1841–1850 273
1851–1860 262
1861–1870 261
1881–1890 239
1891–1900 221
1905 206
1906 206
1907 197
This represents a decline of 135 births for every thousand inhabitants
from 1801 to 1907. It is natural that this symptom is a cause of
much concern to French statesmen and economists. But the problem is
not confined to France. Since a long time the same phenomenon may
be observed in Germany, especially in Saxony, where the decline of
the birthrate has been even more rapid. In Germany there were the
following number of births for every thousand inhabitants:
1875 423
1880 391
1885 385
1890 370
1895 373
1900 368
1905 340
1906 341
1907 332
The majority of the other European countries present a similar
condition, as the following table shows:
For every 1,000 inhabitants.
----------------------------------------
1871 1881 1891 1901
to 1880 to 1890 to 1900 to 1905 1907
England & Wales 35.4 32.5 29.9 28.1 26.3
Scotland 34.9 32.3 30.2 28.9 27.
Ireland 26.5 23.4 23. 23.2 23.2
Sweden 30.5 29.1 27.2 26.1 25.5
Italy 36.9 37.8 34.9 32.6 31.5
Austria 39. 37.9 37.1 35.8 35.
Hungary 44.3 44.0 40.6 37.2 36.
Belgium 32.3 30.2 39. 27.7 25.7
Switzerland 30.8 28.1 28.1 28.1 26.8
Netherlands 36.2 34.2 32.5 31.5 30.
The decline of the birthrate then is a general one, and though France
and Ireland show the lowest figures, the decline is most rapid in
England, Germany and Scotland. We meet with the same phenomenon in
the United States and Australia. The fact presents itself still more
strikingly if we proceed to compare the number of births with the
number of married women between the 15th and 49th year of age:
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN BORN TO 1,000 MARRIED WOMEN BETWEEN THE FIFTEENTH
AND FORTY-NINTH YEAR.
==================+==========================
| DECADES
+--------------------------
| 1876 1886 1896
| to 1885 to 1895 to 1905
------------------+--------------------------
England and Wales | 250 259 203
Scotland | 271 255 235
Ireland | 250 245 264
Denmark | 244 235 217
Norway | 262 259 246
Sweden | 240 231 219
Finland | 259 246 244
Austria | 246 250 242
Hungary | 234 235 216
Switzerland | 239 230 225
German Empire | 268 258 243
Prussia | 273 265 250
Bavaria | 276 263 259
Saxony | 267 250 216
Wurtemberg | 288 259 262
Baden | 266 248 251
Netherlands | 293 286 272
Belgium | 264 236 213
France | 167 150 132
Italy | 248 249 232
------------------+--------------------------
The above enumerated facts go to prove that the birth of a human
being, “God’s image,” as religious persons say, is, on an average,
estimated below the value of a newly-born domestic animal.
In many respects our views differ but slightly from those of barbarian
people. Among the latter, newly-born children were often killed. This
fate especially befell the girls. Among some living savages the same
custom still prevails. We do not kill the girls; we are too civilized
for that, but frequently we treat them as parias. Man, being the
stronger, everywhere represses woman in the struggle for existence,
and if she still persists in the struggle, she is often persecuted
by the stronger sex as an undesirable competitor. Men of the upper
classes are especially bitter against female competition. Among
workingmen the demand to exclude women from the trades is voiced only
rarely. When a resolution formulating such a demand was presented
at a congress of French workingmen in 1876, it was voted down by
a large majority. Since that time the conviction that the working
woman is a fellow being entitled to equal rights and privileges, has
grown among the class-conscious workingmen of all countries. The
resolutions passed by international workingmen’s congresses prove
this. The class-conscious workingman knows that present industrial
conditions compel woman to enter into competition with man. He also
knows, that an attempt to exclude woman from industry would be as
futile as an attempt to forbid the use of machinery. Therefore he
endeavors to instruct woman in regard to her position in society ~and
to enlist her aid in the struggle for freedom of the proletariat
against capitalism~.
3.--Mercenary Marriage and the Matrimonial Market.
Modern society has undoubtedly advanced beyond any previous stage of
development, but our conceptions concerning the relation of the sexes
has in many respects remained unchanged. In 1876 Prof. L. v. Stein
published a book on “Woman in the Field of Political Economy,” that
is not suited to its title, since it merely draws a very poetically
tinted picture of marriage. But this picture clearly shows the
submissive position of woman in her relation to the “lion,” man.
Stein writes: “Man desires a being who not only loves him but also
understands him. He seeks one who is not only devoted to him, but
whose soft hand smoothes the wrinkles on his forehead; who brings
into his life peace, calm, order, gentle self-control, and all the
many little comforts of life to which he returns daily. He needs
some one to enhance all these things with the inexpressible charm
of womanliness, imparting warmth and joy to his home.”
Beneath this apparent praise of woman lurks her degradation and the
egotism of man. The professor depicts woman as a dainty creature,
endowed nevertheless with the needful knowledge of arithmetic to keep
the household accounts well balanced, caressing like a gentle spring
breeze the master of the house, the ruling lion, and with her soft
hand smoothing the wrinkles from his forehead, that perhaps have
appeared there from brooding over his own stupidity. The professor
depicts woman and marriage such as barely one among a hundred actually
exist.
About the many thousand unhappy marriages, about the great number
of women to whom it is never given to attain marriage, and about
the millions of women who must slave beside their husbands from
morning till night to earn their daily bread, he seems to see and
know nothing whatever. All these marriages are stripped of poetry
by the harsh reality of life, more quickly than a careless hand
strips the colored dust from a butterfly’s wing. One glance at those
countless women sufferers would have greatly marred the professor’s
poetically tinted picture. The women he observes only constitute a
small minority, and it is doubtful whether they represent an advanced
type.
There is a frequently quoted saying, that the degree of civilization
attained by a nation may be measured by the position of its women. We
uphold the justice of this saying. But upon applying this standard we
find that our highly lauded civilization does not amount to much. In
his book on the “Subjection of Women”--the title shows the conception
of the position of woman held by the author--John Stuart Mill says:
“Men have become more domesticated. Increasing civilization has put
more fetters on man in regard to woman.” That is true to some extent
wherever an honest marriage relation exists between husband and wife.
But to a considerably large minority it does not apply. Intelligent
men will recognize, that it is to their own advantage, if women are
drawn out into the world from their narrow domestic sphere, and are
given an opportunity to become acquainted with the great problems
of the day. The “fetters” that are thereby placed on him, are not
hard to bear. On the other hand, the question arises whether modern
life has not brought new factors into the matrimonial relation that
are more apt to destroy marriage than any previously known.
Marriage has become an object of material calculation in a marked
degree. The man who wishes to marry, in seeking to obtain a wife, also
seeks to obtain property. That was the chief reason why daughters,
who were at first excluded from the right of inheritance when the
patriarchal system came into power, were at an early period reinstated
to this right. But never before was the marriage market as openly and
cynically displayed as to-day; never before was marriage regarded in
the same degree as a simple speculation, a mere financial transaction.
At present match-making is frequently carried on so shamelessly, that
the often-repeated phrase about the “sanctity of marriage” becomes a
farce. Still, for this fact, as for all others, an explanation can be
found. At no previous time was it so difficult for the great majority
of people to accumulate a modest fortune, as it is at present, and
at no previous time was the striving for a decent livelihood and the
enjoyment of life so general. Those who do not attain the aim they
have set for themselves feel their disappointment all the more keenly,
because all believe to have the same right to enjoyment. No formal
difference of class or caste exists. Everyone hopes to attain some
aim that seems attainable in accordance with his station in life.
But many are called and few are chosen. In order that one may live
in comfort, twenty others must live in want; and in order that one
may revel in luxury, hundreds or thousands must dwell in poverty.
But everyone is eager to be one of the favored few, and accordingly
resorts to all means that are likely to lead him to his goal. One
of the simplest and most accessible means of attaining a privileged
social position is a mercenary marriage. In this way the desire for
money, on the one side, and the desire for social rank and title,
on the other, obtain mutual satisfaction among the upper classes
of society. Here marriage is degraded to a business transaction.
It becomes a conventional union that both sides respect outwardly,
while secretly both all too often follow their own inclinations.[49]
In every large city there are certain places where upon definite
days members of the upper classes come together, chiefly for the
purpose of match-making. Rightly have these reunions been called the
“matrimonial market”; for just as on the stock market, speculation
and barter dominate, and not infrequently fraud and deception enter
into the dealings. Here we find officers of the army, over head and
ears in debt, but possessing some ancient title of nobility; roués,
weakened by a life of debauchery, who seek a wife to nurse them and
hope to mend their shattered health in marriage; manufacturers,
merchants and bankers, who are at the verge of bankruptcy, sometimes
at the verge of imprisonment and who wish to be saved, and public
officials who have prospects of promotion, but are in need of money;
here they come as customers and conclude the marriage bargain. In
these marriages it frequently is deemed quite immaterial whether
the future wife is young or old, pretty or ugly, well-built or
deformed, educated or ignorant, pious or frivolous, a Christian
or a Jewess, provided that she has money. Money redeems all faults
and compensates for the lack of anything else. According to the
German law, procurers are severely punished by imprisonment. But
when parents or guardians barter their children or relatives to
some unloved man or woman for life, for the sake of wealth, social
position or some other advantage, no public prosecutor may interfere,
and yet a crime has been committed. There are many well-organized
matrimonial agencies, and any number of procurers and procuresses
who are searching candidates for the “sacred wedded state.” These
transactions are especially profitable when performed in the interest
of members of the upper classes. In 1878 a procuress was tried in
Vienna who had been accused of being an accomplice in murder, and
was finally sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Among other
things the trial revealed that the former French ambassador to
Vienna, Count Banneville, had paid this woman 22,000 guilders for
procuring a wife for him. Other members of the aristocracy were also
involved in this trial. For years the authorities had permitted this
woman to ply her criminal trade unmolested. In the capital of the
German Empire similar occurrences were reported. They are met with
wherever there are persons seeking to contract mercenary marriages.
During the last few decades the daughters and heiresses of American
millionaires have become special objects of desire to the pauperized
European nobility. These American women, on the other hand, have
exchanged their millions for the rank and title that are unknown
in their own country. A number of communications, published in the
German press during the fall of 1889, contained some characteristic
information on this subject. According to this a German nobleman
living in California had offered his services as a match-maker by
advertising in German and Austrian papers. The offers he received
in return clearly show the conceptions prevailing in the circles
concerned, in regard to the sanctity of marriage and its ethical side.
Two Prussian army officers, members of an ancient nobility, sought
his services, and frankly stated as the reason of their doing so, the
fact, that together they owed over 15,000 dollars. In their letter
to the procurer they literally wrote: “It is self-understood that we
cannot pay anything in advance. You will receive your remuneration
immediately after the wedding journey. Only recommend ladies to us
whose families are in no wise objectionable. We would also consider
it very desirable to meet ladies who are particularly good-looking.
If required, we will give your agent our photographs, who can also
give us further details, show us the ladies’ photographs, etc. We
regard this whole transaction as an affair of ~honor~ (!) and expect
the same of you. We expect an early reply through your agent on this
side.
“Baron v. M........
“Baron v. W........
“Berlin, Frederick St. 107, Dec. 15, 1889.”
A young German nobleman, Hans v. H...... wrote from London that he
were five foot ten, of ancient nobility, and employed in diplomatic
service. He confessed that his fortune had been greatly diminished
by unsuccessful betting at the races, and that he was therefore
compelled to seek a rich wife. “I am prepared,” he wrote, “to come to
the United States immediately.” The German-American nobleman asserted
that besides a number of counts, barons, etc., he had counted among
his customers three princes and sixteen dukes. Some men who were not
the proud possessors of a title bargained for American heiresses
likewise. An architect, Max W. from Leipsic, asked for a fiancée who
must be rich, beautiful and cultured. A young manufacturer, Robert D.,
from Kehl on the Rhine, wrote that he would content himself with a
fiancée owning 100,000 dollars, and promised in advance that he would
make her happy. But we need not look far to find further instances
of this sort. We need but glance at the matrimonial advertisements
in many of our capitalistic papers to recognize them as the outward
signs of degrading views. The prostitute who plies her trade as a
result of bitter need is morally superior to these marriage seekers.
The editor of a Socialist paper who should venture to publish such
advertisements would be expelled from his party. The capitalistic
press does not hesitate to publish such advertisements, because they
pay. But that does not prevent this same press from railing against
the Socialistic principles as being destructive of marriage. No age
has been more hypocritical than ours. Most of these newspapers are
nothing more or less than matrimonial agencies. One might fill entire
pages with clippings taken from leading newspapers on a single day.
Sometimes the interesting fact is revealed, that even ministers are
sought in this way and that ministers also resort to this method
to seek wives. Sometimes the applicants even consent to overlook a
moral blemish, provided that the girl is rich. The moral degradation
of certain strata of society could not be more vividly exposed than
by this sort of marriage.
[49] For the sake of completeness we must also mention marriage for
political reasons as contracted in the highest circles. In these
marriages the right is also silently conceded to the man to follow
his own inclinations outside of his marriage. There was a time when
rulers considered it good form, a sort of royal attribute, to have
at least one mistress. Thus, according to Sherr, King Frederick
William I. of Prussia, otherwise noted for his temperate life,
maintained an intimate relation with the wife of a general. It is
well known that King August of Poland and Saxony had almost 300
illegitimate children, and that King Victor Emanuel of Italy left 32
illegitimate children. In the picturesquely situated little capital
of a German principality there still stood not many years ago about
a dozen beautiful villas that had been erected by the ruler for his
abdicated mistresses. One might write volumes on this subject; in
fact, an extensive collection of books exists that deal mainly with
these piquant occurrences. In view of these facts it is indeed very
necessary that sycophantical historians should strive to present the
various fathers and mothers of their countries as models of domestic
virtue, as faithful husbands and devoted mothers. The augurs are not
yet extinct, they fatten, as in the days of Rome, upon the ignorance
of the masses.