CHAPTER VII

MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY

With wild animals sexual desire is not less powerful as an incentive to strenuous exertion than hunger and thirst. In the rut-time, the males even of the most cowardly species engage in mortal combats; and abstinence, or at least voluntary abstinence, is almost unheard of in a state of nature.[751]

As regards savage and barbarous races of men, among whom the relations of the sexes under normal conditions take the form of marriage, nearly every individual strives to get married as soon as he, or she, reaches the age of puberty.[752] Hence there are far fewer bachelors and spinsters among them than among civilized peoples. Harmon found that among the Blackfeet, Crees, Chippewyans, and other aboriginal tribes on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, celibacy was a rare exception;[753] and Ashe noted the same fact among the Shawanese.[754] Prescott states of the Dacotahs, “I do not know of a bachelor among them. They have a little more respect for the women and themselves, than to live a single life.”[755] Indeed, according to Adair, many Indian women thought virginity and widowhood the same as death.[756] Among the Eastern Greenlanders, visited by Lieutenant Holm, only one unmarried woman was met with.[757]

The Charruas, says Azara, “ne restent jamais dans le célibat, et ils se marient aussitôt qu’ils sentent le besoin de cette union.”[758] As regards the Yahgans, Mr. Bridges writes that “none but mutes and imbeciles remained single, except some lads of vigour who did so from choice, influenced by licentiousness. But no woman remained unmarried; almost immediately on her husband’s death the widow found another husband.”

Among the wild nations of Southern Africa, according to Burchell, neither men nor women ever pass their lives in a state of celibacy;[759] and Bosman assures us that very few negroes of the Gold Coast died single, unless they were quite young.[760] Among the Mandingoes, Caillié met with no instance of a young woman, pretty or plain, who had not a husband.[761] Barth reports that the Western Touaregs had no fault to find with him except that he lived in celibacy; they could not even understand how this was possible.[762]

Among the Sinhalese there are hardly any old bachelors and old maids;[763] and Mr. Marshall says of the Todas, “No unmarried class exists, to disturb society with its loves and broils; ... it is a ‘very much married’ people. Every man and every woman, every lad and every girl is somebody’s husband or wife; tied at the earliest possible age.... With the exception of a cripple girl, and of those women who, past the child-bearing age, were widows, I did not meet with a single instance of unmarried adult females.”[764] Among the Toungtha, it is unheard of for a man or woman to be unmarried after the age of thirty, and among the Chukmas, a bachelor twenty-five years old is rarely seen.[765] The Muásís consider it a father’s duty to fix upon a bridegroom as soon as his daughter becomes marriageable.[766] Among the Burmese[767] and the Hill Dyaks of Borneo,[768] old maids and old bachelors are alike unknown. Among the Sumatrans, too, instances of persons of either sex passing their lives in a state of celibacy are extremely rare:—“In the districts under my charge,” says Marsden, “are about eight thousand inhabitants, among whom I do not conceive it would be possible to find ten instances of men of the age of thirty years unmarried.”[769] In Java, Mr. Crawfurd “never saw a woman of two-and-twenty that was not, or had not been, married.”[770] In Tonga, according to Mariner, there were but few women who, from whim or some accidental cause, remained single for life.[771] In Australia, “nearly all the girls are betrothed at a very early age;” and Mr. Curr never heard of a woman, over sixteen years of age, who, prior to the breakdown of aboriginal customs after the coming of the Whites, had not a husband.[772] As to the natives of Herbert River, Northern Queensland, Herr Lumholtz says that though the majority of the young men have to wait a long time before they get wives, it is rare for a man to die unmarried.[773]

Indeed, so indispensable does marriage seem to uncivilized man, that a person who does not marry is looked upon almost as an unnatural being, or, at any rate, is disdained.[774] Among the Santals, if a man remains single, “he is at once despised by both sexes, and is classed next to a thief, or a witch: they term the unhappy wretch ‘No man.’”[775] Among the Kafirs, a bachelor has no voice in the kraal.[776] The Tipperahs, as we are told by Mr. J. F. Browne, do not consider a man a person of any importance till he is married;[777] and, in the Tupi tribes, no man was suffered to partake of the drinking-feast while he remained single.[778] The Fijians even believed that he who died wifeless was stopped by the god Nangganangga on the road to Paradise, and smashed to atoms.[779]

It may also be said that savages, as a rule, marry earlier in life than civilized men. A Greenlander, says Dr. Nansen, often marries before there is any chance of the union being productive.[780] Among the Californians, Mandans, and most of the north-western tribes in North America, marriage frequently takes place at the age of twelve or fourteen.[781] In the wild tribes of Central Mexico, girls are seldom unmarried after the age of fourteen or fifteen.[782] Among the Talamanca Indians, a bride is generally from ten to fourteen years old, whilst a man seldom becomes a husband before fourteen.[783] In certain other Central American tribes, the parents try to get a wife for their son when he is nine or ten years old.[784]

Among the natives of Brazil, the man generally marries at the age of from fifteen to eighteen, the woman from ten to twelve.[785] According to Azara, the like was the case with the Guaranies of the Plata, whilst, among the Guanas, “celle qui se marie le plus tard, se marie à neuf ans.”[786] In Tierra del Fuego, as we are informed by Lieutenant Bove, a girl looks about for a husband when twelve or thirteen years old, and a youth marries at the age of from fourteen to sixteen.[787]

Many African peoples, _e.g._, the Abyssinians,[788] the Beni-Amer, the Djour tribes on the White Nile,[789] the Arabs of the Sahara, the Wakamba, and the Ba-kwileh,[790] are likewise said to marry very young. Marriage usually takes place, among the Bongos when they are from fifteen to seventeen years old, but in many other tribes at an earlier age.[791]

Among the Sinhalese, when a young man has reached the age of eighteen or twenty, it is the duty of his father to provide him with a proper wife.[792] Among the Bodo and Dhimáls, “marriage takes place at maturity, the male being usually from twenty to twenty-five years of age, and the female from fifteen to twenty.”[793] A Santal lad marries, as a rule, about the age of sixteen or seventeen, and a girl at that of fifteen;[794] whilst a Kandh boy marries when he reaches his tenth or twelfth year, his wife being usually about four years older.[795] The Khyoungtha,[796] Munda Kols,[797] Red Karens,[798] Siamese,[799] Burmese,[800] Mongols,[801] and other Asiatic peoples, are also known to marry early. Among the Ainos, the young women are considered marriageable at the age of sixteen or seventeen, and the men marry when about nineteen or twenty.[802] Again, among the Lake Dwellers of Lob-nor, girls enter into matrimony at the age of fourteen or fifteen, men at the same age, or a little later;[803] whilst, among the Malays, according to Mr. Bickmore, the boys usually marry for the first time when about sixteen, and the girls at the age of thirteen or fourteen, and occasionally still earlier.[804]

Passing to the Australian continent: among the natives of New South Wales, the parties are in most cases betrothed very early in life, the young man claiming his wife later on, as soon as he arrives at the proper age.[805] According to Mr. Curr, “girls become wives at from eight to fourteen years of age.”[806] At Port Moresby, New Guinea, “few men over twenty years of age remain single;” and the Maoris in New Zealand are stated to marry very young.[807]

Moreover, celibacy is comparatively rare not only among savage and barbarous, but among several civilized races.

Among the Azteks, no young man lived single till his twenty-second year, unless he intended to become a priest, and for girls the customary marrying-age was from eleven to eighteen. In Tlascala, according to Clavigero, the unmarried state was, indeed, so despised that a full-grown man who would not marry had his hair cut off for shame.[808] Again, among the ancient Peruvians, every year, or every two years, each governor in his district had to arrange for the marriage of all the young men at the age of twenty-four and upwards, and all the girls from eighteen to twenty.[809]

In Japan, as I am told by a Japanese friend, old maids and old bachelors are almost entirely unknown, and the same is the case in China.[810] “Almost all Chinese,” says Dr. Gray, “robust or infirm, well-formed or deformed, are called upon by their parents to marry so soon as they have attained the age of puberty. Were a grown-up son or daughter to die unmarried, the parents would regard it as most deplorable.” Hence a young man of marriageable age, whom consumption or any other lingering disease had marked for its own, would be called upon by his parents or guardians to marry at once.[811] Nay, so indispensable is marriage considered among this people, that even the dead are married. Thus the spirits of all males who die in infancy, or in boyhood, are in due time married to the spirits of females who have been cut off at a like early age.[812]

Marco Polo states the prevalence of the same practice among the Tartars.[813] In Corea, says the Rev. John Ross, “the male human being who is unmarried is never called a ‘man,’ whatever his age, but goes by the name of ‘yatow;’ a name given by the Chinese to unmarriageable young girls: and the ‘man’ of thirteen or fourteen has a perfect right to strike, abuse, order about the ‘yatow’ of thirty, who dares not as much as open his lips to complain.”[814]

Mohammedan peoples generally consider marriage a duty both for men and women.[815] “Nothing,” says Carsten Niebuhr, “is more rarely to be met with in the East, than a woman unmarried after a certain time of life.” She will rather marry a poor man, or become second wife to a man already married, than remain in a state of celibacy.[816] Among the Persians, for instance, almost every girl of good repute is married before her twenty-first year, and old bachelors are unknown.[817] In Egypt, according to Mr. Lane, it is improper and even disreputable to abstain from marrying when a man has attained a sufficient age, and when there is no just impediment.[818]

Among the Hebrews, celibacy was nearly unheard of, as it is among the Jews of our day. They have a proverb that “he who has no wife is no man.”[819] “To an ancient Israelite,” Michaelis remarks, “it would indeed have appeared very strange to have seen, though but in a vision, a period in the future history of the world, when it would be counted sanctity and religion to live unmarried.”[820] Marriage was by the Hebrews looked upon as a religious duty. According to the Talmud, the authorities can compel a man to marry, and he who lives single at the age of twenty is accursed by God almost as if he were a murderer.[821]

The ancient nations of the Aryan stock, as M. Fustel de Coulanges and others have pointed out, regarded celibacy as an impiety and a misfortune: “an impiety, because one who did not marry put the happiness of the Manes of the family in peril; a misfortune, because he himself would receive no worship after his death.” A man’s happiness in the next world depended upon his having a continuous line of male descendants, whose duty it would be to make the periodical offerings for the repose of his soul.[822]

Thus, according to the ‘Laws of Manu,’ marriage is the twelfth Sanskāra, and hence a religious duty incumbent upon all.[823] “Until he finds a wife, a man is only half of a whole,” we read in the ‘Brahmadharma’;[824] and, among the Hindus of the present day, a man who is not married is considered to be almost a useless member of society, and is, indeed, looked upon as beyond the pale of nature. It is also an established national rule, that women are designed for no other end than to be subservient to the wants and pleasures of men; consequently, all women without exception are obliged to marry, when husbands can be found for them, and those who cannot find a husband commonly fall into the state of concubinage.[825] Among the ancient Iranians, too, it was considered a matter of course that a girl should be married on reaching the years of puberty.[826]

The ancient Greeks regarded marriage as a matter not merely of private, but also of public interest. This was particularly the case at Sparta, where criminal proceedings might be taken against those who married too late, and against those who did not marry at all. In Solon’s legislation marriage was also placed under the inspection of the State, and, at Athens, persons who did not marry might be prosecuted, although the law seems to have grown obsolete in later times. But independently of public considerations, there were private reasons which made marriage an obligation.[827] Plato remarks that every individual is bound to provide for a continuance of representatives to succeed himself as ministers of the Divinity;[828] and Isaeus says, “All they who think their end approaching, look forward with a prudent care that their houses may not become desolate, but that there may be some person to attend to their funeral rites, and to perform the legal ceremonies at their tombs.”[829]

To the Roman citizen, as Mommsen observes, a house of his own and the blessing of children appeared the end and essence of life;[830] and Cicero’s treatise ‘De Legibus’—a treatise which generally reproduces, in a philosophic form, the ancient laws of Rome—contains a law, according to which the Censors had to impose a tax upon unmarried men.[831] But in later periods, when sexual morality reached a very low ebb in Rome, celibacy—as to which grave complaints were made as early as 520 B.C.—naturally increased in proportion, especially among the well-off classes. Among these, marriage came to be regarded as a burden which people took upon themselves at the best in the public interest. Indeed, how it fared with marriage and the rearing of children, is shown by the Gracchan agrarian laws, which first placed a premium thereon;[832] whilst, later on, the _Lex Julia et Papia Poppæa_ imposed various penalties on those who lived in a state of celibacy after a certain age,[833]—but with little or no result.[834]

Again, the Germans, as described by Cæsar, accounted it in the highest degree scandalous to have intercourse with the other sex before the twentieth year.[835] Tacitus also asserts that the young men married late, and the maidens did not hurry into marriage.[836] But it seems probable that at a later age celibacy was almost unknown among the Germans, except in the case of women who had once lost their reputation, for whom neither beauty, youth, nor riches could procure a husband.[837] As for the Slavs, it should be observed that, among the Russian peasantry celibacy is even now unheard of.[838] When a youth reaches the age of eighteen, he is informed by his parents that he ought to marry at once.[839]

There are, however, even in savage life, circumstances which compel certain persons to live unmarried for a longer or shorter time. When a wife has to be bought, a man must of course have some fortune before he is able to marry. Thus, as regards the Zulus, Mr. Eyles writes to me that “young men who are without cattle have often to wait many years before getting married.”[840] When Major-General Campbell asked some of the Kandhs why they remained single, they replied that they did so because wives were too expensive.[841] Among the Munda Kols and Hos, in consequence of the high prices of brides, are to be found “what are probably not known to exist in other parts of India, respectable elderly maidens.”[842] In the New Britain Group, too, according to Mr. Romilly, the purchase sum is never fixed at too low a price, hence “it constantly happens that the intended husband is middle-aged before he can marry.”[843] Similar statements are made in a good many books of travels.[844]

Polygyny, in connection with slavery and the unequal distribution of property, acts in the same direction. In Makin, one of the Kingsmill Islands, a great number of young men were unmarried owing to the majority of the women being monopolized by the wealthy and powerful.[845] Among the Bakongo, according to Mr. Ingham, as also among the Australians,[846] polygyny causes celibacy among the poorer and younger men; and Dr. Sims says the like of the Bateke, Mr. Cousins of the Kafirs, Mr. Radfield of the inhabitants of Lifu. Among the Kutchin Indians, according to Hardisty, there are but few young men who have wives—unless they can content themselves with some old cast-off widow—on account of all the chiefs, medicine men, and those who possess rank acquired by property having two, three, or more wives.[847] For the same reason many men of the lower classes of the Waganda are obliged to remain single, in spite of the large surplus of women.[848] In Micronesia, also, it is common for the poorer class and the slaves to be doomed to perpetual celibacy.[849] Among the Thlinkets, a slave cannot acquire property, nor marry, except by consent of his master, which is rarely given;[850] and in the Soudan the case seems to be the same.[851]

But we must not exaggerate the importance of these obstacles to marriage. When the man is not able to buy a wife for himself, he may, in many cases, acquire her by working for some time with her parents, or by eloping with her. Moreover, as Sir John Lubbock remarks, the price of a wife is generally regulated by the circumstances of the tribe, so that nearly every industrious young man is enabled to get one.[852] Speaking of the Sumatrans, Marsden observes that the necessity of purchasing does not prove such an obstacle to matrimony as is supposed, for there are few families who are not in possession of some small substance, and the purchase-money of the daughters serves also to provide wives for the sons.[853] Again, polygyny is, as we shall see further on, almost everywhere restricted to a small minority of the people, and is very often connected with the fact that there is a surplus of women. Thus, among the polygynous Waguha, as I am informed by Mr. Swann, unmarried grown-up men do not exist, the women being more numerous than the men. At any rate, we may conclude that at earlier stages of civilization, when polygyny was practised less extensively and women were less precious chattels than they afterwards became, celibacy was a much rarer exception than it is now among many of the lower races.

Passing to the peoples of Europe, we find, from the evidence adduced by statisticians, that modern civilization has proved very unfavourable to the number of marriages. In civilized Europe, in 1875, more than a third of the male and female population beyond the age of fifteen lived in a state of voluntary or involuntary celibacy. Excluding Russia, the number of celibates varied from 25·57 per cent. in Hungary to 44·93 per cent. in Belgium. And among them there are many who never marry.[854] In the middle of this century, Wappäus found that, in Saxony, 14·6 per cent. of the unmarried adult population died single; in Sweden, 14·9 per cent.; in the Netherlands, 17·2 per cent.; and in France, 20·6 per cent.[855] Of the rest, many marry comparatively late in life. Thus, in Denmark, only 19·43 per cent. of the married men were under twenty-five, and in Bavaria (in 1870-1878), only 16.36, whilst the figures for England and Russia look more favourable, being respectively 51·90 per cent. (in 1872-1878), and 68·31 per cent. (in 1867-1875). Of the married women, on the other hand, only 5·09 per cent. are below the age of twenty in Sweden, 5·40 per cent. in Bavaria, 7·44 per cent. in Saxony, 14·86 per cent. in England, &c.; but in Hungary as many as 35·16 per cent., and in Russia even 57·27 per cent.[856] The mean age of the bachelors who enter into matrimony is 26 years in England and 28·48 in France, that of the spinsters respectively 24·07 and 25·3.[857]

As a rule, the proportion of unmarried people has been gradually increasing in Europe during this century,[858] and the age at which people marry has risen. In England we need not go further back than two decades, to find a greater tendency on the part of men to defer marriage to later age than was formerly the case.[859] Finally, it must be noted that in country districts single men and women are more seldom met with, and marriage is generally concluded earlier in life, than in towns.[860]

There are, indeed, several factors in modern civilization which account for the comparatively large number of celibates. In countries where polygyny is permitted, women have a better chance of getting married than men, but in Europe the case is reversed. Here, as in most parts of the world, the adult women outnumber the adult men. If we reckon the age for marriage from twenty to fifty years, a hundred men may, in Europe, choose amongst a hundred and three or four women, so that about three or four women per cent. are doomed to a single life on account of our obligatory monogamy.[861]

The chief cause, however, of increasing celibacy is the difficulty of supporting a family in modern society. The importance of this factor is distinctly proved by statistics. It has been observed that the frequency of marriages is a very sensible barometer of the hopes which the mass of people have for the future; hard times, wars, commercial crises, &c., regularly depressing the number of marriages, whilst comparative abundance has the opposite effect.[862]

In non-European countries into which a precocious civilization has not been introduced, the population is more nearly in proportion to the means of subsistence, and people adapt their mode of life more readily to their circumstances. In most cases a man can earn his living sooner;[863] and a wife far from being a burden to her husband, is rather a help to him, being his labourer or sometimes even his supporter. Moreover, children, instead of requiring an education that would absorb the father’s earnings, become, on the contrary, a source of income. Thus Mr. Bickmore asserts that, among the Malays, difficulty in supporting a family is unknown.[864] Carsten Niebuhr states that, in the East, men are as disposed to marry as women, “because their wives, instead of being expensive, are rather profitable to them.”[865] And, speaking of the American Indians, Heriot says that children form the wealth of savage tribes.[866]

To a certain extent, the like is true of the agricultural classes of Europe. A peasant’s wife helps her husband in the field, tends the cattle, and takes part in the fishing. She cooks and washes, sews, spins, and weaves. In a word, she does many useful things about which women of the well-off classes never think of troubling themselves. Hence in Russia, as we are informed by M. Pietro Semenow, the small agriculturists, who form an enormous proportion of the population, are in the habit of arranging for the marriage of their sons at as early an age as possible in order to secure an additional female labourer.[867]

Even in cities it is not among the poorest classes that celibacy is most frequent. A “gentleman,” before marrying, thinks it necessary to have an income of which a mere fraction would suffice for a married workman. He has to offer his wife a home in accordance with her social position and his own; and unless she brings him some fortune, she contributes but little to the support of the family. Professor Vallis has made out that, in the nobility and higher _bourgeoisie_ of Sweden, only 32 per cent. of the male population and 26 per cent. of the female population are married, whilst the averages for the whole population amount to 34 and 32 per cent. respectively.[868] Some such disproportion must always exist when the habits of life are luxurious, and the amount of income does not correspond to them. And it is obvious that women have to suffer from this trouble more than men, the life of many of them being comparatively so useless, and their pretensions, nevertheless, so high.

Another reason why the age for marriage has been raised by advancing civilization is, that a man requires more time to gain his living by intellectual than by material work. Thus, miners, tailors, shoemakers, artisans, &c., who earn in youth almost as much as in later life, marry, as a rule, earlier than men of the professional class.[869] In most European countries the decrease in the number of married people is also partly due to the drafting of young men into the army, and their retention in it in enforced bachelorhood during the years when nature most strongly urges to matrimony.

Of course these conditions affect directly the marriage age only of men, but indirectly they influence that of women also. Many fall in love with their future wives long before they are able to form a home, and those who marry late generally avoid very great disparity of age.[870]

In one respect the average age at which women marry may be said to depend directly upon the degree of civilization. Dr. Ploss has justly pointed out that the ruder a people is, and the more exclusively a woman is valued as an object of desire, or as a slave, the earlier in life is she generally chosen;[871] whereas, if marriage becomes a union of souls as well as of bodies, the man claims a higher degree of mental maturity from the woman he wishes to be his wife.

At the lower stages of human development, the pleasures of life consist chiefly in the satisfaction of natural wants and instincts. Hence savages and barbarians scarcely ever dream of voluntarily denying themselves “domestic bliss.” But, as a writer in ‘The Nation’ says, “by the general diffusion of education and culture, by the new inventions and discoveries of the age, by the increase of commerce and intercourse and wealth, the tastes of men and women have become widened, their desires multiplied, new gratifications and pleasures have been supplied to them. By this increase of the gratifications of existence the relative share of them which married life affords has become just so much less. The domestic circle does not fill so large a place in life as formerly. It is really less important to either man or woman. Married life has lost in some measure its advantage over a single life. There are so many more pleasures, now, that can be enjoyed as well or even better in celibacy.”[872]

It has further been suggested that the development of the mental faculties has made the sexual impulse less powerful. That instinct is said to be most excessive in animals which least excel in intelligence, the beasts which are the most lascivious, as the ass, the boar, &c., being also the most stupid;[873] and M. Forel even believes that, among the ants, increase of mind-power may have led to the sterility of the workers.[874] Idiots, too, are known to display very gross sensuality.[875] Yet the suggestion that decrease of sexual desire is a necessary attendant upon mental evolution cannot, so far as I know, by any means be considered scientifically proved, though we may safely say that if, among primitive men, pairing was restricted to one season of the year, the sexual instinct became gradually less intense as it became less periodical. A higher degree of forethought and self-control has, moreover, to a certain extent put the drag on human passions.

Finally, there can be no doubt that the higher development of feeling has helped to increase the number of those who remain single. “By the diffusion of a finer culture throughout the community,” says the above-mentioned writer in ‘The Nation,’ “men and women can less easily find any one whom they are willing to take as a partner for life; their requirements are more exacting; their standards of excellence higher; they are less able to find any who can satisfy their own ideal, and less able to satisfy anybody else’s ideal. Men and women have, too, a livelier sense of the serious and sacred character of the marriage union, and of the high motives from which alone it should be formed. They are less willing to contract it from any lower motives.”[876]

In what direction is the civilized world tending with regard to these matters? Will the number of celibates increase as hitherto, or will there be some backward movement in that respect? A definite answer cannot yet be given, since much will depend on economical conditions which it is impossible at present to foresee.

* * * * *

Before this chapter is closed, it may be worth while to glance at the curious notion that there is something impure and sinful in marriage, as in sexual relations generally. The missionary Jellinghaus found this idea prevalent among the Munda Kols in Chota Nagpore. Once when he asked them, “May a dog sin?” the answer was, “If the dog did not sin how could he breed?”[877] In Efate, of the New Hebrides, according to Mr. Macdonald, sexual intercourse is regarded as something unclean;[878] and the Tahitians believed that, if a man refrained from all connection with women some months before death, he passed immediately into his eternal mansion without any purification.[879] It is perhaps for a similar reason that the Shawanese have a great respect for certain persons who observe celibacy,[880] and that, among the Californian Karok, a man who touches a woman within three days before going out hunting is believed to miss the quarry.[881] Among several peoples, as the Brazilian aborigines,[882] the Papuans of New Guinea,[883] certain tribes in Australia,[884] the Khyoungtha of the Chittagong Hills,[885] and the Khevsurs of the Caucasus,[886] continence is required from newly married people for some time after marriage. The same is the case with several peoples of Aryan origin; and Dr. v. Schroeder even believes that this custom can be traced back to the primitive times of the Indo-European race.[887] In ancient Mexico, the Mazatek bridegroom kept apart from the bride during the first fifteen days of his wedded life, both spending the time in fasting and penance.[888] In Greenland, according to Egede, if married couples had children before a year was past, or if they had large families, they were blamed, and compared to dogs.[889] In Fiji, husbands and wives do not usually spend the night together, except as it were by stealth; it is quite contrary to Fijian ideas of delicacy that they should sleep under the same roof. Thus a man spends the day with his family, but absents himself on the approach of night.[890] Speaking of certain American Indians, Lafitau remarks, “Ils n’osent aller dans les cabanes particulières où habitent leurs épouses, que durant l’obscurité de la nuit; ... ce seroit une action extraordinaire de s’y présenter de jour.”[891] Moreover, in spite of the great licentiousness of many savage races, a veil of modesty, however transparent, is generally drawn over the relations of the sexes.[892]

The same notion of impurity doubtless explains the fact that certain persons devoted to religion have to live a single life. In the Marquesas Islands, no one could become a priest without having lived chastely for several years previously.[893] In Patagonia, according to Falkner, the male wizards were not allowed to marry,[894] and the same prohibition applied to the priests of the Mosquito Indians and the ancient Mexicans.[895] In Peru, there were virgins dedicated to the Sun, who lived in seclusion to the end of their lives; and besides the virgins who professed perpetual virginity in the monasteries, there were other women, of the blood royal, who led the same life in their own houses, having taken a vow of chastity. “These women,” says Garcilasso de la Vega, “were held in great veneration for their chastity and purity, and, as a mark of worship and respect, they were called ‘Occlo,’ which was a name held sacred in their idolatry.”[896] In Mexico, also, certain religious women were bound to chastity, although their profession was but for one year. Speaking of these nuns, the pious Father Acosta remarks, “The devil hath desired to be served by them that observe Virginitie, not that chastitie is pleasing unto him, for he is an uncleane spirite, but for the desire he hath to take from the great God, as much as in him lieth, this glory to be served with cleanness and integrity.”[897] Justinus tells us of Persian Sun priestesses, who, like the Roman vestals and certain Greek priestesses, were obliged to refrain from intercourse with men;[898] and according to Pomponius Mela, the nine priestesses of the oracle of a Gallic deity in Sena were devoted to perpetual virginity.[899]

The Buddhistic doctrine teaches that lust and ignorance are the two great causes of the misery of life, and that we should therefore suppress lust and remove ignorance. We read in the ‘Dhammika-Sutta’ that “a wise man should avoid married life as if it were a burning pit of live coals.”[900] Sensuality is altogether incompatible with wisdom and holiness. According to the legend, Buddha’s mother, who was the best and purest of the daughters of men, had no other sons, and her conception was due to supernatural causes.[901] And one of the fundamental duties of monastic life, by an infringement of which the guilty person brings about his inevitable expulsion from Buddha’s Order, is, that “an ordained monk may not have sexual intercourse, not even with an animal. The monk who has sexual intercourse is no longer a monk.”[902] Mr. Wilson, indeed, states that, in Tibet, some sects of the Lamas are allowed to marry; but those who do not are considered more holy. And in every sect the nuns must take a vow of absolute continence.[903] Again, the Chinese laws enjoin celibacy upon all priests, Buddhist or Taouist.[904]

In India, where, according to Sir Monier Williams, married life has been more universally honoured than in any other country of the world, celibacy has, nevertheless, in instances of extraordinary sanctity, always commanded respect.[905] “Those of their Sannyâsis,” says Dubois, “who are known to lead their lives in perfect celibacy, receive, on that account, marks of distinguished honour and respect.” But the single state, which is allowed to those who devote themselves to a life of contemplation, is not tolerated in any class of women.[906]

Among a small class of Hebrews, too, the idea that marriage is impure gradually took root. The Essenes, says Josephus, “reject pleasures as an evil, but esteem continence and the conquest over our passions to be virtue. They neglect wedlock.”[907] This doctrine exercised no influence upon Judaism, but probably much upon Christianity. St. Paul held celibacy to be preferable to marriage:—“He that giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well,” he says; “but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.”[908] Yet, as for most men continence is not possible, marriage is for them not only a right but a duty. “It is good for a man not to touch a woman; nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.... If they (the unmarried and widows) cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”[909] A much stronger opinion as to the superiority of celibacy is expressed by most of the Fathers of the Church. Origen thought marriage profane and impure. Tertullian says that celibacy must be chosen, even if mankind should perish. According to St Augustine, the unmarried children will shine in heaven as beaming stars, whilst their parents will look like the dim ones.[910] Indeed, as Mr. Lecky observes, the cardinal virtue of the religious type became the absolute suppression of the whole sensual side of our nature, and theology made the indulgence of one passion almost the sole unchristian sin.[911] It was a favourite opinion among the Fathers that, if Adam had preserved his obedience to the Creator, he would have lived for ever in a state of virgin purity, and that some harmless mode of vegetation might have peopled paradise with a race of innocent and immortal beings. The use of marriage was in fact permitted to his fallen posterity only as a necessary expedient for the continuance of the human species, and as a restraint, however imperfect, on the natural licentiousness of desire.[912] But, though it may be marriage that fills the earth, says St. Jerome, it is virginity that replenishes heaven.[913]

These opinions led by degrees to the obligatory celibacy of the secular and regular clergy. The New Testament gives us no intimation that, during the lifetime of the apostles, monastic vows were taken by men of any age, or by unmarried women, and hardly any of the apostles themselves were celibates.[914] But gradually, as continence came to be regarded as a cardinal virtue, and celibacy as the nearest approach to the Divine perfection, a notion that the married state is not consistent with the functions of the clergy became general. As early as the end of the fourth century, the continence of the higher grades of ecclesiastics was insisted on by a Roman synod, but no definite punishment was ordered for its violation.[915] Gregory VII.—who “looked with abhorrence on the contamination of the holy sacerdotal character, even in its lowest degree, by any sexual connection”—was the first who prescribed with sufficient force the celibacy of the clergy. Yet, in many countries, it was so strenuously resisted, that it could not be carried through till late in the thirteenth century.[916]

As for the origin of this notion of sexual uncleanness, it may perhaps be connected with the instinctive feeling, to be dealt with later on, against intercourse between members of the same family or household. Experience, I think, tends to prove that there exists a close association between these two feelings, which shows itself in many ways. Sexual love is entirely banished from the sphere of domestic life, and it is reasonable to suppose, therefore, that when it appears in other relations, an association of ideas attaches a notion of impurity to the desire and a notion of shame to its gratification. Evidently, also, the religious enforcement of celibacy is intimately allied to the belief that sexual intercourse is the great transmitter of original sin, as well as to the abhorrence of every enjoyment which is considered to degrade the spiritual nature of man.