It is proposed in the following remarks to meet an objection that has
been repeatedly urged against the possible adoption of any system of
Eugenics, namely, that human nature would never brook interference with
the freedom of marriage.
In my reply, I shall proceed on the not unreasonable assumption, that
when the subject of Eugenics shall be well understood, and when its
lofty objects shall have become generally appreciated, they will meet
with some recognition both from the religious sense of the people and
from its laws. The question now to be considered is, how far have
marriage restrictions proved effective, when sanctified by the religion
of the time, by custom, and by law? I appeal from arm-chair criticism to
historical facts.
To this end, a brief history will be given of a few widely spread
customs. It will be seen that with scant exceptions they are based on
social expediency, and not on natural instincts. Each of the following
paragraphs might have been expanded into a long chapter had that seemed
necessary. Those who desire to investigate the subject further can
easily do so by referring to standard works in anthropology, among the
most useful of which, for the present purpose, are Frazer’s _Golden
Bough_, Westermarck’s _History of Marriage_, Huth’s _Marriage of Near
Kin_, and Crawley’s _Mystic Rose_.
1. MONOGAMY. It is impossible to label mankind by one general term,
either as animals who instinctively take a plurality of mates, or who
consort with only one, for history suggests the one condition as often
as the other. Probably different races, like different individuals, vary
considerably in their natural instincts. Polygamy may be understood
either as having a plurality of wives; or, as having one principal wife
and many secondary but still legitimate wives, or any other recognised
but less legitimate connections; in one or other of these forms it is
now permitted—by religion, customs, and law—to at least one-half of the
population of the world, though its practice may be restricted to a few,
on account of cost, domestic peace, and the insufficiency of females.
Polygamy holds its ground firmly throughout the Moslem world. It exists
throughout India and China in modified forms, and it is entirely in
accord with the sentiments both of men and women in the larger part of
negro Africa. It was regarded as a matter of course in the early
Biblical days. Jacob’s twelve children were born of four mothers all
living at the same time, namely, Leah, and her sister Rachel, and their
respective handmaids Bilhah and Zilpah. Long afterwards, the Jewish
kings emulated the luxurious habits of neighbouring potentates and
carried polygamy to an extreme degree. For Solomon, see I Kings xi. 3.
For his son Rehoboam, see II Chron. xi. 21. The history of the
subsequent practice of the custom among the Jews is obscure, but the
Talmud contains no law against polygamy. It must have ceased in Judæa by
the time of the Christian Era. It was not then allowed in either Greece
or Rome. Polygamy was unchecked by law in profligate Egypt, but a
reactionary and ascetic spirit existed, and some celibate communities
were formed in the service of Isis, who seem to have exercised a large
though indirect influence in introducing celibacy into the early
Christian Church. The restriction of marriage to one living wife
subsequently became the religion and the law of all Christian nations,
though licence has been widely tolerated in royal and other
distinguished families, as in those of some of our English kings.
Polygamy was openly introduced into Mormonism by Brigham Young, who left
seventeen wives, and fifty-six children. He died in 1877; polygamy was
suppressed soon after (_Encyc. Brit._, xvi. 827.)
It is unnecessary for my present purpose to go further into the
voluminous data connected with marriages such as these in all parts of
the world. Enough has been said to show that the prohibition of
polygamy, under severe penalties by civil and ecclesiastical law, has
been due not to any natural instinct against the practice, but to
consideration of social well-being. I conclude that equally strict
limitations to freedom of marriage might, under the pressure of worthy
motives, be hereafter enacted for Eugenic and other purposes.
2. ENDOGAMY, or the custom of marrying exclusively _within_ one’s own
tribe or caste, has been sanctioned by religion and enforced by law, in
all parts of the world, but chiefly in long settled nations where there
is wealth to bequeath and where neighbouring communities profess
different creeds. The details of this custom, and the severity of its
enforcement, have everywhere varied from century to century. It was
penal for a Greek to marry a barbarian, for a Roman patrician to marry a
plebeian, for a Hindu of one caste to marry one of another caste, and so
forth. Similar restrictions have been enforced in multitudes of
communities, even under the penalty of death.
A very typical instance of the power of law over the freedom of choice
in marriage, and which was by no means confined to Judæa, is that known
as the Levirate. It shows that family property and honour were once held
by the Jews to dominate over individual preferences. The Mosaic law
actually _compelled_ a man to marry the widow of his brother if he left
no male issue. (Deuteron. xxv.) Should the brother refuse, “then shall
his brother’s wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and
loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall
answer and say, so shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up
his brother’s house. And his name shall be called in Israel the house of
him that hath his shoe loosed.” The form of this custom survives to the
present day and is fully described and illustrated under the article
“Halizah” (= taking off, untying) in the _Jewish Cyclopædia_. Jewish
widows are now almost invariably remarried with this ceremony. They are
as we might describe it, “given away” by a kinsman of the deceased
husband, who puts on a shoe of an orthodox shape which is kept for the
purpose, the widow unties the shoe, spits, but now on the _ground_, and
repeats the specified words.
The duties attached to family property led to the history, which is very
strange to the ideas of the present day, of Ruth’s advances to Boaz
under the advice of her mother. “It came to pass at midnight” that Boaz
“was startled (see marginal note in the Revised Version) and turned
himself, and behold a woman lay at his feet,” who had come in “softly
and uncovered his feet and laid her down.” He told her to lie still
until the early morning and then to go away. She returned home and told
her mother, who said, “Sit still, my daughter, until thou know how the
matter will fall, for the man will not rest until he have finished the
thing this day.” She was right. Boaz took legal steps to disembarrass
himself of the claims of a still nearer kinsman, “who drew off his
shoe”; so Boaz married Ruth. Nothing could be purer from the point of
view of those days, than the history of Ruth. The feelings of the modern
social world would be shocked if the same thing were to take place now
in England.
Evidence from the various customs relating to endogamy show how choice
in marriage may be dictated by religious custom. That is, by a custom
founded on a religious view of family property and family descent.
Eugenics deal with what is more valuable than money or lands, namely the
heritage of a high character, capable brains, fine physique, and vigour;
in short, with all that is most desirable for a family to possess as a
birthright. It aims at the evolution and preservation of high races of
men, and it as well deserves to be strictly enforced as a religious
duty, as the Levirate law ever was.
3. EXOGAMY is, or has been, as widely spread as the opposed rule of
endogamy just described. It is the duty enforced by custom, religion,
and law, of marrying _outside_ one’s own clan, and is usually in force
amongst small and barbarous communities. Its former distribution is
attested by the survival in nearly all countries, of ceremonies based on
“marriage by capture.” The remarkable monograph on this subject by the
late Mr. McLennan is of peculiar interest. It was one of the earliest,
and perhaps the most successful, of all attempts to decipher prehistoric
customs by means of those now existing among barbarians, and by the
marks they have left on the traditional practices of civilised nations,
including ourselves. Before his time those customs were regarded as
foolish, and fitted only for antiquarian trifling. In small fighting
communities of barbarians, daughters are a burden; they are usually
killed while infants, so few women are found in a tribe who were born in
it. It may sometimes happen that the community has been recently formed
by warriors who brought no women, and who, like the Romans in the old
story, could only supply themselves by capturing those of neighbouring
tribes. The custom of capture grows; it becomes glorified because each
wife is a living trophy of the captor’s heroism, and marriage within the
tribe soon comes to be considered an unmanly, and at last a shameful
act. The modern instances of this among barbarians are very numerous.
4. AUSTRALIAN MARRIAGES. The following is a brief clue, and apparently a
true one, to the complicated marriage restrictions among Australian
bushmen, which are enforced by the penalty of death, and which seem to
be partly endogamous in origin and partly otherwise. The example is
typical of those of many other tribes that differ in detail.
A and B are two tribal classes; 1 and 2 are two other and _independent_
divisions of the tribe (probably by totems). Any person, taken at
random, is equally likely to have either letter or either numeral by
birthright, and his or her numeral and letter are well known to all the
community. Hence the members of the tribe are sub-classed into four
sub-divisions, A1, A2, B1, B2. The rule is that a man may marry those
women only, whose letter and numeral are both different to his own. Thus
A1 can marry only B2, the other three sub-divisions A1, A2, and B1 being
absolutely barred to him. As to the children, there is a difference of
practice in different parts: in the cases most often described, the
child takes its father’s letter and its mother’s numeral, which
determines class by paternal descent. In other cases the arrangement
runs in the contrary way, that is by maternal descent.
The cogency of this rule is due to custom, religion and law, and is so
strong that nearly all Australians would be horrified at the idea of
breaking it. If anyone dared to do so, he would probably be clubbed to
death.
Here then is another restriction to the freedom of marriage which might
with equal propriety have been applied to the furtherance of some form
of Eugenics.
5. TABOO. The survival of young animals largely depends on their
inherent timidity, their keen sensitiveness to warnings of danger by
their parents and others, and to their tenacious recollection of them.
It is so with human children, who are easily terrified by nurses’ tales
and thereby receive more or less durable impressions.
A vast complex of motives can be brought to bear upon the naturally
susceptible minds of children, and of uneducated adults who are mentally
little more than big children. The constituents of this complex are not
sharply distinguishable, but they form a recognisable whole that has not
yet received an appropriate name, in which religion, superstition,
custom, tradition, law, and authority all have part. This group of
motives will for the present purpose be entitled “immaterial” in
contrast to material ones. My contention is that the experience of all
ages and all nations shows that the immaterial motives are frequently
far stronger than the material ones, the relative power of the two being
well illustrated by the tyranny of taboo in many instances, called as it
is by different names in different places. The facts relating to taboo
form a voluminous literature, the full effect of which cannot be
conveyed by brief summaries. It shows how, in most parts of the world,
acts that are apparently insignificant, have been invested with ideal
importance, and how the doing of this or that has been followed by
outlawry or death, and how the mere terror of having unwittingly broken
a taboo, may suffice to kill the man who broke it. If non-eugenic unions
were prohibited by such taboos, none would take place.
6. PROHIBITED DEGREES. The institution of marriage, as now sanctified by
religion and safeguarded by law in the more highly civilised nations,
may not be ideally perfect, nor may it be universally accepted in future
times, but it is the best that has hitherto been devised for the parties
primarily concerned, for their children, for home life, and for society.
The degrees of kinship within which marriage is prohibited, is with one
exception quite in accordance with modern sentiment, the exception being
the disallowal of marriage with the sister of a deceased wife, the
propriety of which is greatly disputed and need not be discussed here.
The marriage of a brother and sister would excite a feeling of loathing
among us that seems implanted by nature, but which further inquiry will
show, has mainly arisen from tradition and custom.
We will begin by giving due weight to certain assigned motives. (1)
Indifference and even repugnance between boys and girls, irrespectively
of relationship, who have been reared in the same barbarian home. (2)
Close likeness, as between the members of a thorough-bred stock, causes
some sexual indifference: thus highly bred dogs lose much of their
sexual desire for one another, and are apt to consort with mongrels. (3)
Contrast is an element in sexual attraction which has not yet been
discussed quantitatively. Great resemblance creates indifference, and
great dissimilarity is repugnant. The maximum of attractiveness must lie
somewhere between the two, at a point not yet ascertained. (4) The harm
due to continued interbreeding has been considered, as I think, without
sufficient warrant, to cause a presumed strong natural and instinctive
_repugnance_ to the marriage of near kin. The facts are that close and
continued interbreeding invariably does harm after a few generations,
but that a single cross with near kinsfolk is practically innocuous. Of
course a sense of repugnance might become correlated with any harmful
practice, but there is no evidence that it is _repugnance_ with which
interbreeding is correlated, but only _indifference_; this is equally
effective in preventing it, but is quite another thing. (5) The
strongest reason of all in civilised countries appears to be the earnest
desire not to infringe the sanctity and freedom of the social relations
of a family group, but this has nothing to do with instinctive sexual
repugnance. Yet it is through the latter motive alone, so far as I can
judge, that we have acquired our apparently instinctive horror of
marrying within near degrees.
Next as to facts. History shows that the horror now felt so strongly did
not exist in early times. Abraham married his half-sister Sarah, “she is
indeed the sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my
mother, and she became my wife.” (Gen. XX. 12). Amram, the father of
Moses and Aaron, married his aunt, his father’s sister Jochabed. The
Egyptians were accustomed to marry sisters. It is unnecessary to go
earlier back in Egyptian history than to Ptolemies, who, being a new
dynasty, would not have dared to make the marriages they did in a
conservative country, unless popular opinion allowed it. Their dynasty
includes its founder Ceraunus, who is not numbered; the numbering begins
with his son Soter, and goes on to Ptolemy XIII., the second husband of
Cleopatra. Leaving out her first husband, Ptolemy XII., as he was a mere
boy, and taking in Ceraunus, there are thirteen Ptolemies to be
considered. Between them, they contracted eleven incestuous marriages,
eight with whole sisters, one with a half-sister, and two with nieces.
Of course the object was to keep the royal line pure, as was done by the
ancient Peruvians. It would be tedious to follow out the laws enforced
at various times and in the various states of Greece during the
classical ages. Marriage was at one time permitted in Athens between
half-brothers and half-sisters, and the marriage between uncle and niece
was thought commendable in the time of Pericles, when it was prompted by
family considerations. In Rome the practice varied much, but there were
always severe restrictions. Even in its dissolute period, public opinion
was shocked by the marriage of Claudius with his niece.
A great deal more evidence could easily be adduced, but the foregoing
suffices to prove that there is no instinctive repugnance felt
universally by man, to marriage within the prohibited degrees, but that
its present strength is mainly due to what I call immaterial
considerations. It is quite conceivable that a non-eugenic marriage
should hereafter excite no less loathing than that of a brother and
sister would do now.
7. CELIBACY. The dictates of religion in respect to the opposite duties
of leading celibate lives, and of continuing families, have been
contradictory. In many nations it is and has been considered a disgrace
to bear no children, and in other nations celibacy has been raised to
the rank of a virtue of the highest order. The ascetic character of the
African portion of the early Christian Church, as already remarked,
introduced the merits of celibate life into its teaching. During the
fifty or so generations that have elapsed since the establishment of
Christianity, the nunneries and monasteries, and the celibate lives of
Catholic priests, have had vast social effects, how far for good and how
far for evil need not be discussed here. The point which I wish to
enforce is the potency, not only of the religious sense in aiding or
deterring marriage, but more especially the influence and authority of
ministers of religion in enforcing celibacy. They have notoriously used
it when aid has been invoked by members of the family on grounds that
are not religious at all, but merely of family expediency. Thus, at some
times and in some Christian nations, every girl who did not marry while
still young, was practically compelled to enter a nunnery from which
escape was afterwards impossible.
It is easy to let the imagination run wild on the supposition of a
whole-hearted acceptance of Eugenics as a national religion; that is of
the thorough conviction by a nation that no worthier object exists for
man than the improvement of his own race; and when efforts as great as
those by which nunneries and monasteries were endowed and maintained
should be directed to fulfil an opposite purpose. I will not enter
further into this. Suffice it to say, that the history of conventual
life affords abundant evidence on a very large scale, of the power of
religious authority in directing and withstanding the tendencies of
human nature towards freedom in marriage.
CONCLUSION.—Seven different subjects have now been touched upon. They
are monogamy, endogamy, exogamy, Australian marriages, taboo, prohibited
degrees and celibacy. It has been shown under each of these heads how
powerful are the various combinations of immaterial motives upon
marriage selection, how they may all become hallowed by religion,
accepted as custom and enforced by law. Persons who are born under their
various rules live under them without any objection. They are
unconscious of their restrictions, as we are unaware of the tension of
the atmosphere. The subservience of civilised races to their several
religious superstitions, customs, authority, and the rest, is frequently
as abject as that of barbarians. The same classes of motives that direct
other races, direct ours, so a knowledge of their customs helps us to
realise the wide range of what we may ourselves hereafter adopt, for
reasons that will be as satisfactory to us in those future times, as
theirs are or were to them, at the time when they prevailed.
Reference has frequently been made to the probability of Eugenics
hereafter receiving the sanction of religion. It may be asked, “how can
it be shown that Eugenics fall within the purview of our own.” It
cannot, any more than the duty of making provision for the future needs
of oneself and family, which is a cardinal feature of modern
civilization, can be deduced from the Sermon on the Mount. Religious
precepts, founded on the ethics and practice of olden days, require to
be reinterpreted to make them conform to the needs of progressive
nations. Ours are already so far behind modern requirements that much of
our practice and our profession cannot be reconciled without
illegitimate casuistry. It seems to me that few things are more needed
by us in England than a revision of our religion, to adapt it to the
intelligence and needs of the present time. A form of it is wanted that
shall be founded on reasonable bases and enforced by reasonable hopes
and fears, and that preaches honest morals in unambiguous language,
which good men who take their part in the work of the world, and who
know the dangers of sentimentalism, may pursue without reservation.