Part 2

GROUP MARRIAGE.--A remarkable system of relationships, with which is combined a series of regulations framed with the object of pointing out what persons are entitled to enter into the marital relation, is found to be prevalent in nearly all uncivilized peoples. The members of a tribe are divided into two or more groups, each of which consists of persons who are nearly related by blood, and who are forbidden, therefore, to intermarry. One of the tribes of Central Australia, the Dieyerie, has a legend which explains the marriage system common to them and to all the other tribes, as being intended to prevent the evil effects of intermarriage between persons very near of kin. The story is valuable as showing the opinion entertained by savages as to the effect on the race of breeding in and in--a subject to which we may have occasion to make further reference. Dr. J. F. McLennan and other writers on primitive marriage refer to the practice among certain _civilized_ peoples of antiquity of what we regard as incestuous marriage, in support of the view that in the early history of mankind intercourse between the sexes was promiscuous.[21:A] Such an explanation is entirely uncalled for, however, as the custom was intended to secure purity of blood, that is, blood of a particular line of ancestors. Such marriages were known only to a few peoples, and they were evidently of comparatively late origin. Whether the purity of blood was attended with improvement of the stock may be doubted; as, whatever may have been the actual origin of the marriage regulations of the numerous peoples among whom the classificatory system of relationship is established, they are intended, without question, to prevent the intermarriage of persons who are regarded as near blood relations, the general disapproval of which must have had some sufficient reason, or, at all events, must have originated in ideas supposed to furnish good grounds for it.

MAKING CHILDREN THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE.--The principles which were embodied in the scheme proposed by Plato, in his "Republic," to bring about an improvement in the race are mainly two: First, restriction on the formation of procreative unions; second, infanticide. The breaking up of private or separate families necessarily resulted from the operation of his "marriage" regulations, and was intended to emphasize the idea which Plato, like Lycurgus, insisted on, that the children belonged to the State. Lycurgus sought to enforce the same idea by allowing wives to have intercourse with other men than their husbands, thus making children "common" in some sense, while retaining the separate family intact. Thus he introduced, or rather it should be said, established a modified form of polyandrous marriage; Plato's system, on the other hand, being one of mere pairing, as in the breeding of animals. In either case the union of very near relations was not permitted, that is, between brother and sister, or parent and child. Yet Lycurgus allowed marriage between a half-brother and sister by the same mother. Curiously enough, this was forbidden by the Athenian law, which permitted a brother and sister by the same father only to intermarry. The Greek rule, as laid down in Smith's "Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities," was that "proximity of blood or consanguinity was not, with some few exceptions, a bar to marriage," although direct lineal descent was so. Moreover, there was no attempt to enforce consanguineous marriages, so as to ensure purity of blood, such as was customary among the Incas of Peru, the laws of which required that the oldest son and daughter of the sovereign should intermarry because the Incas were descended from the Sun, and the Sun had married his sister the Moon, and had united in marriage his two first children! A more practical reason was found in the rule that the kingdom should be inherited through both parents. Hence it was not permitted to mix the blood of the Sun, or rather of those who claimed solar descent, with that of men.

GRECIAN METHODS NOT SUITABLE TO OUR TIME.--It is evident that the principles which governed the ancients in their endeavors to improve the race are not capable of application at the present day, under the conditions of modern civilization. Instead of placing further restrictions on marriage, the tendency now is to loosen those which have hitherto existed, although certain regulations, such as relate to age, consent, etc., are recognized as necessary for the interests of the State. Moreover, greater facilities are given than were formerly allowed for dissolving ill-assorted unions, thus getting rid of the excuse for the formation of irregular connections. Nevertheless, the interests of neither society at large nor of individuals will permit of the introduction of the temporary or occasional pairing system, which is a return to an animal state, and, therefore, not worthy of the dignity implied in the term, marriage, and which is inconsistent with true family life. It would be liable to all kinds of abuse, and would become, in most cases, a legalized system of prostitution, thus dragging society down to a lower level instead of raising it, and tending to the deterioration, instead of the improvement, of the race, if not to its extinction. As to infanticide, this certainly would not be tolerated by public opinion, although it is now largely resorted to under the guise of abortion. To legalize child-killing under any circumstances would be to offer a premium for murder, even if it were permitted only with the express sanction in every case of the officials of the State. There is now no justification for such a course, as the education of those who appear to be on a mental level with the animals has been carried so far that the term "idiot" may soon have to be dropped from our vocabulary.

It must be affirmed, however, that the whole subject of the improvement of the race was dealt with by Plato, and, indeed, by the ancients generally, in a very crude and superficial manner. This has been well pointed out by Professor B. Jowett in the Introduction to his translation of Plato's "Republic." Professor Jowett objects generally that the great error in the speculations of Plato and others on the improvement of the race is, "that the difference between men and the animals is forgotten in them." The human being is regarded with the eye of a dog or bird fancier, or at best of a slave owner; the higher or human qualities are left out. The breeder of animals aims chiefly at size or speed or strength; in a few cases, at courage and temper; most often the fitness of the animal for food is the greatest desideratum. But mankind are not bred to be eaten, nor yet for their superiority in fighting or in running or in drawing carts. Nor does the improvement of the human race consist merely in the increase of the bones and flesh, but in the growth and enlightenment of the mind. Hence there must be a marriage of true minds as well as of bodies; of imagination and reason as well as of lusts and instincts. Men and women without feeling or imagination are justly called brutes; yet Plato takes away these qualities and puts nothing in their place, not even the desire of a noble offspring, since parents are not to know their own children. The most important transaction of social life he who is the idealist philosopher converts into the most brutal. For the pair are to have no relation to each other but at the hymeneal festival; their children are not theirs, but the State's; nor is any tie of affection to unite them. Yet the analogy of the animals might have saved Plato from a gigantic error if he had not lost sight of his own illustration! For the "nobler sort of birds and beasts" nourish and protect their offspring and are faithful to one another! It is certainly surprising, as Jowett says, that the greatest of ancient philosophers should, in his marriage regulations, have fallen into the error of separating body and mind. He did so probably through a false notion of the antagonism between the family and the State, and hence, as Lycurgus did not aim at destroying family life he escaped that error.

And yet there is nothing to show that the marriage regulations of Lycurgus had any real effect on the children of the State. That the early Spartans were a hardy and courageous people is undoubtedly true; but apart from the practice of infanticide, which would necessarily get rid of the weak, their character and conduct can be explained by reference merely to the system of training, both of youth and maidens, which Lycurgus rigidly enforced. Lacedemon was essentially a military republic, and its rulers aimed to breed soldiers, rather than men in the noble sense in which the term "man" is now used. Indeed, there is nothing to show that any compulsory attempt to improve the race has ever been successful, apart from the effect which the destruction of feeble and deformed offspring may have, and the influence of the severe training of those who are allowed to survive.

Nevertheless, the human race has vastly improved since its first appearance on the earth, if the teachings of the doctrine of evolution are true and applicable to man as well as to the inferior animals. The passage from the native Australian to the European is a long one, and yet they are supposed to represent a common primitive stock. The steps by which the European has been gradually developed, with his special characteristics, cannot now be traced; but one of the chief agencies to which the result is due is that to which Darwin applied the term, "sexual selection." As natural selection has relation to _adaptation_, and its aim is "the survival of the fittest," so sexual selection has reference to _beauty_, and its object is the perpetuation of the most beautiful, according to the taste of the peoples practicing it. Darwin was the first to point out the importance of sexual selection for certain purposes which, as stated by Professor G. J. Romanes, in his "Darwin and after Darwin,"[28:A] "have no reference to utility or the preservation of life." The latter writer in treating of the subject affirms it is universally admitted that the higher animals do not pair indiscriminately, the members of either sex preferring "those individuals of the opposite sex which are to them most attractive." Many birds and certain mammals clearly display the esthetic sense, which is shown by the former particularly in the adorning of their nests with colored objects; and it is reflected in the personal appearance of the animals themselves. During the pairing season, birds take on their most brilliant plumage, and the males take great pains to exhibit their charms before the females, actively competing with one another in so doing. There is similar rivalry among song birds, who strive to see which can best please the females by their singing.

SEXUAL SELECTION.--Professor Romanes, after referring to those facts, which are considered in detail by his great predecessor, states the theory of sexual selection as follows: "There can be no question that the courtship of birds is a highly elaborate business, in which the males do their best to surpass one another in charming the females. Obviously the inference is that the males do not take all this trouble for nothing; but that the females give their consent to pair with the males whose personal appearance, or whose voice, proves to be the most attractive. But, if so, the young of the male bird who is thus _selected_ will inherit his superior beauty; and thus, in successive generations, a continuous advance will be made in the beauty of plumage or of song, as the case may be,--both the origin and development of beauty in the animal world being thus supposed due to the esthetic taste of the animals themselves."

It is not necessary to refer particularly to the evidence in support of the theory of sexual selection. There can be no doubt that it is a most important factor in the perpetuation and increase of certain characters, those which come within the category of "beautiful," the very existence of which proves them to be beneficial to the stock to which the animals exhibiting them belong. The fundamental fact is that they have "the effect of charming the females into a performance of the sexual act;" an opinion which is supported by the more general fact that "both among quadrupeds and birds, individuals of the one sex are capable of feeling a strong antipathy against, or a strong preference for, certain individuals of the opposite sex."

These statements are applicable also to man, with whom the principle of sexual selection must have been influential to at least the same degree as among the lower animals. It may be expected, indeed, to be more influential, as the esthetic taste with which it is associated becomes more highly developed with man than with any member of the animal kingdom. Even here it is not a question of mere coloration. The theory of sexual selection as framed by Darwin is concerned, as Romanes points out, not so much with color itself as with the particular disposition of color in the form of ornamental patterns. These have a kind of _structural_ value, and certain birds, moreover, possess actual structural peculiarities, such as ornamental appendages to the beak, the only use of which would appear to be to charm the female during courtship. We may suppose, therefore, that sexual selection has affected not merely what may be termed the superficial characters of man, but to some extent, at least, those which have a structural value.

The principle of sexual selection is applicable primarily to the characteristics of the male; but Darwin supposes them to have been transferred to the other sex, and through them transmitted to the race generally. In his "Descent of Man," he remarks of the actual influence over the race of that principle: "The nervous system not only regulates most of the existing functions of the body, but has indirectly influenced the progressive development of various bodily structures and of certain mental qualities. Courage, pugnacity, perseverance, size and strength of body, weapons of all kinds, musical organs, both vocal and instrumental, bright colours and ornamental appendages have all been indirectly gained by the one sex or the other, through the exertion of choice, the influence of love and jealousy, and the appropriation of the beautiful in sound, colour or form; and these powers of the mind manifestly depend on the development of the brain."

That sexual selection has actually resulted in modification of human physical structure, Darwin thinks can be shown by reference to the ancient Persians, whose type was greatly improved by intermarriage with the beautiful Georgian and Circassian women. He refers to several similar cases, and particularly to the Jollofs of West Africa, whose handsome appearance is said to be due to their retaining for wives only their most beautiful slaves, the others being sold.

Sexual selection may be operative for the improvement of the race through the action of either man or woman, and the conditions of its activity are different in either case. As to the action of man, Darwin says in relation to primitive peoples: "The strongest and most vigorous men--those who could best defend and hunt for their families, who were provided with the best weapons and possessed the most property, such as a large number of dogs or other animals--would succeed in rearing a greater average number of offspring than the weaker and poorer members of the same tribe. There can, also, be no doubt that such men would generally be able to select the more attractive women. At present, the chiefs of nearly every tribe throughout the world succeed in obtaining more than one wife."

With reference to selection by the women, Darwin shows that among savages they have much more to say in their marriages than is usually supposed. He remarks: "They can tempt the men they prefer, and can sometimes reject those whom they dislike, either before or after their marriage. Preference on the part of the women, steadily acting in any one direction, would ultimately affect the character of the tribe, for the women would generally choose, not merely the handsomest men, according to their standard of taste, but those who were at the same time best able to defend and support them. Such well-endowed pairs would commonly rear a larger number of offspring than the less favored." Darwin adds: "The same result would obviously follow in a still more marked manner if there were selection on both sides, that is, if the more attractive, and at the same time more powerful men were to prefer, and were preferred by, the more attractive women. And this double form of selection seems actually to have occurred, especially during the earlier periods of our long history."

The investigations of Darwin as to the operation of sexual selection had reference chiefly to the modification of physical characters. He did not altogether lose sight, however, of its possible influence in affecting for the better the mental characteristics of the race. He concludes his enquiry by the remark that "Man might by selection do something, not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian, and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Every one does good service who aids towards this end."

It is in the application of the principle of sexual selection to the mental characteristics of man, that any real improvement of the race, viewed as consisting of human beings and not of mere animals, must be brought about. Beauty of physical form and feature is of importance in human relations only so far as it is associated with beauty of mind and character, that is, with high intellectual and moral attainments. That these often go together is true, but it is not always the case. Grant Allen says: "To be sound in wind and limb; to be healthy of body and mind; to be educated; to be emancipated; to be free, to be beautiful--these things are ends towards which all should strive, and by attaining which all are happier in themselves, and more useful to others." But physical and intellectual perfection are not always found together, as was observed by Darwin, when he mentioned among the causes which interfere with the physical action of sexual selection the fact that men are largely attracted by the mental charms of women. Professor Jowett affirms truly that "Many of the noblest specimens of the human race have been among the weakest physically. Tyrtaens or AEsop, or our own Newton, would have been destroyed at Sparta, and some of the fairest and strongest men and women have been among the wickedest and worst." Hence, he properly infers that "Not by the Platonic device of uniting the strong and the fair with the strong and the fair, regardless of sentiment and morality, nor yet by his other device of combining dissimilar natures, have mankind gradually passed from the brutality and licentiousness of primitive marriage to marriage Christian and civilized."

The truth of this inference cannot be denied, because to leave out of view considerations of sentiment and morality would fatally vitiate any scheme for the improvement of the human race. But Professor Jowett affirms that, "We do not know how by artificial means any improvement in the breed can be effected." The problem is no doubt a complex one. As he points out, a child has usually thirty progenitors only four steps back, and whatever truth there may be in the inheritance of special physical characters, "We have a difficulty in distinguishing what is a true inheritance of genius or other qualities, and what is mere imitation or the result of similar circumstances. _Great men and great women have rarely had great fathers and mothers._" Professor Jowett thinks, indeed, that too much importance may be ascribed to heredity. He says: "The doctrine of heredity may seem to take out of our hands the conduct of our lives, but it is the idea, not the fact, which is really terrible to us. For what we have received from our ancestors is only a fraction of what we are or may become. The knowledge that drunkenness or insanity has been prevalent in a family may be the best safeguard against their recurrence in a future generation. The parent will be most awake to the vices or diseases in his child of which he is most sensible within himself. The whole of life may be directed to their prevention or cure. The traces of corruption may become fainter, or be wholly effaced; the inherited tendency to vice and crime may be eradicated. And so heredity, from being a curse, may become a blessing. We acknowledge that in the matter of our birth, as in our nature generally, there are previous circumstances which affect us. But on this platform of circumstances, or within this wall of necessity, we have still the power of creating a life for availment by the reforming energy of the human will."

There is much truth in these remarks of Professor Jowett, but they do not affect the argument in favor of the possibility of bringing about an improvement in the race if the proper means are adopted. It would not be any wiser for the strong and healthy to marry with the sick and weak, because the latter happen to be highly intellectual or moral, than to marry with the strong and healthy if these physical characters are united with mental weakness or immorality. There is a consensus of opinion at the present day, that what should be aimed at is the union of physical perfection with that of intellect and character, in the persuasion that steps towards this end will ultimately lead to the general improvement of the human race.

DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY.--The difficulty is to devise and carry out some scheme for the purpose which shall be both feasible and agreeable to public sentiment. The latter consideration would prevent any attempt at active stirpiculture under State direction, although the State might indirectly affect the result by subsidiary regulations as to marriage and training of children. There is nothing, however, to prevent the systematic efforts of private individuals, and in such cases the causes which Darwin cites as interfering with the physical action of sexual selection would not operate. The most systematic experiment in stirpiculture of modern times was that originated by John Humphrey Noyes at the Oneida Community, in central New York, from 1868 to 1879. A paper on this experiment was read by Anita Newcomb McGee before the American Science Association in August, 1891, which was published in "The American Anthropologist," 1891, and the following facts are taken from that paper.