CHAPTER XVI
SEXUAL SELECTION AS INFLUENCED BY AFFECTION AND SYMPATHY, AND BY CALCULATION
Sexual love is the passion which unites the sexes. The stimulating impressions produced by health, youth, and beauty, and ornaments and other artificial means of attraction, are all elements of this feeling. The antipathy to sexual intercourse with individuals of another species, and the horror of incest, belong to the same phenomenon. But the psychology of love is by no means exhausted by this. “Simple et primitif comme toutes les forces colossales,” says Professor Mantegazza, “l’amour paraît pourtant formé des éléments de toutes les passions humaines.”[2065] Around the sexual appetite as the leading element there are aggregated many different feelings, such as admiration, pleasure of possession, love of freedom, self-esteem, and love of approbation.[2066] A complete analysis of love would fill a volume. Here I shall discuss only one of the most important elements of this highly compound feeling, the sentiment of affection.
In the lower stages of human development sexual affection is much inferior in intensity to the tender feelings with which parents embrace their children; and among several peoples it seems to be almost unknown. Thus, speaking of the Hovas in Madagascar, Mr. Sibree says that, among them, until the spread of Christianity, there was “no lack of strong affection between blood-relations—parents and children, brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren;” but the idea of love between husband and wife was hardly thought of.[2067] On the Gold Coast, says Major Ellis, “love, as understood by the people of Europe, has no existence.”[2068] At Winnebah, according to Mr. Duncan, “not even the appearance of affection exists between husband and wife;” and almost the same is asserted by M. Sabatier with reference to the Kabyles, by Signor Bonfanti with reference to the Bantu race.[2069] Munzinger says that, among the Beni-Amer, it is considered even disgraceful for a wife to show any affection for her husband.[2070] The Chittagong Hill tribes, according to Captain Lewin, have “no idea of tenderness, nor of chivalrous devotion.” Marriage is among them regarded as merely a convenient and animal connection.[2071] In the Island of Ponapé, according to Dr. Finsch, love in our sense of the term is entirely unknown.[2072] As regards the Eskimo of Newfoundland, Heriot asserts, “Like all other men in the savage state, they treat their wives with great coldness and neglect, but their affection towards their offspring is lively and tender.”[2073] In Greenland, a man thought nothing of beating his wife, but it was an heinous offence for a mother to chastise her children.[2074] Almost the same is said of the Kutchin by Mr. Jones, and of the Eskimo of Norton Sound by Mr. Dall.[2075] According to Mr. Morgan, the refined passion of love is unknown to the North American Indians in general.[2076]
Such statements, however, may easily be misleading. The love of a savage is certainly very different from the love of a civilized man; nevertheless, we may discover in it traces of the same ingredients. There are facts which tend to show that even very rude savages may have conjugal affection; nay, that among certain uncivilized peoples it has reached a remarkably high degree of development.
Among the wretched Bushmans, according to Mr. Chapman, there is love in all their marriages.[2077] Among the races of the Upper Congo, love is ennobled by a certain poetry;[2078] and with the Touaregs, there is a touch of almost chivalrous sentiment in the relations between men and women.[2079] Regarding the man-eating Niam-Niam, Dr. Schweinfurth asserts that they display an affection for their wives which is unparalleled among other natives of an equally low grade.[2080]
The Hos are good husbands and wives, and although they have no terms in their own language to express the higher emotions, “they feel them all the same.”[2081] The missionary Jellinghaus found tokens of affectionate love between married people among the Munda Kols, Mr. Fawcett among the Savaras, Sir Spenser St. John among the Sea Dyaks, Mr. Man among the Andamanese.[2082] In New Caledonia, says M. Moncelon, “l’amour existe, et j’ai vu des suicides par amour.”[2083] In Samoa, stories of affectionate love between husband and wife are preserved in song.[2084] In Tonga, according to Mariner, most of the women were much attached to their husbands;[2085] and in Fiji, says Dr. Seemann, “even widowers, in the depth of their grief, have frequently terminated their existence, when deprived of a dearly beloved wife.”[2086] In several of the Australian tribes, married people are often much attached to each other, and continue to be so even when they grow old.[2087] Concerning the aborigines of Victoria, Daniel Bunce says it is an error to suppose that there exists no settled love or lasting affection between the sexes; among the Narrinyeri, Mr. Taplin has known as well-matched and loving couples as he has among Europeans; and, according to Mr. Bonney, husband and wife among the natives of the River Darling, rarely quarrel, and “they show much affection for each other in their own way.”[2088]
Among the Eskimo of the north-east coast of North America, visited by Lyon, “young couples are frequently seen rubbing noses, their favourite mark of affection, with an air of tenderness.”[2089] The Tacullies, as Harman informs us, are remarkably fond of their wives.[2090] And Mr. Catlin goes even so far as to deny that the North American Indians are “in the least behind us in conjugal, in filial, and in paternal affection,”[2091]—a statement with which Mr. Morgan does not agree. Mr. Brett asserts that, among the natives of Guiana, instances of conjugal attachment are very frequent.[2092] Azara and Mantegazza found tokens of it among some other South American tribes;[2093] and the rude Fuegians are said to “show a good deal of affection for their wives.”[2094]
It is, indeed, impossible to believe that there ever was a time when conjugal affection was entirely wanting in the human race. Though originally of far less intensity than parental love, especially on the mother’s side, as being of less importance for the existence of the species, yet it seems, in its most primitive form, to have been as old as marriage itself. It must be a certain degree of affection that induces the male to defend the female during her period of pregnancy; but often it is the joint care of the offspring, more than anything else, that makes the married couple attached to each other. With reference to the Dacotahs, Mr. Prescott remarks that “as children increase, the parents appear to be more affectionate.”[2095]
Of course it is impossible to suppose that mutual love can generally be the motive which leads to marriage when the wife is captured or purchased from a foreign tribe. In the main, Mr. Hall’s assertion as to the Eskimo visited by him, that “love—if it come at all—comes after the marriage,”[2096] holds good for many savage peoples. Among the Australians, for instance, according to Mr. Brough Smyth, love has often no part in the preparations for marriage. “The bride is dragged from her home—she is unwilling to leave it; and if fears are entertained that she will endeavour to escape, a spear is thrust through her foot or her leg. A kind husband will, however, ultimately evoke affection, and fidelity and true love are not rare in Australian families.”[2097]
The affection accompanying the union of the sexes has gradually developed in proportion as altruism in general has increased. Thus love has only slowly become the refined feeling it is in the heart of a highly civilized European. In Eastern countries with their ancient civilization there exists even now but little of that tenderness towards the woman which is the principal charm of our own family life. In China, up to recent times, it was considered “good form” for a man to beat his wife, and, if the Chinaman of humble rank spared her a little, he did so only in order not to come under the necessity of buying a successor.[2098] In Hindu families, according to Dubois, sincere mutual friendship is rarely met with. “It is in vain,” he says, “to expect, between husband and wife, that reciprocal confidence and kindness which constitute the happiness of a family. The object for which a Hindu marries is not to gain a companion to aid him in enduring the evils of life, but a slave to bear children and be subservient to his rule.”[2099] The love of which the Persian poets sing has either a symbolic or a very profane meaning.[2100] Among the Arabs, says Burckhardt, “the passion of love is, indeed, much talked of by the inhabitants of towns; but I doubt whether anything is meant by them more than the grossest animal desire.”[2101] Mr. Finck remarks that in the whole of the Bible there is not a single reference to romantic love.[2102] And even in Greece, according to some authorities, the love of the sexes was little more than sexual instinct.[2103]
It is also obvious that marriage cannot be contracted from affection where the young women before marriage are kept quite apart from the men, as is done in Eastern countries. In China it often happens that the parties have not even seen each other till the wedding-day; and, in Greece, custom was scarcely less rigorous in this respect.[2104] In vain Plato urged that young men and women should be more frequently permitted to meet one another, so that there should be less enmity and indifference in the married life.[2105] Plutarch hopes that love will come after marriage.[2106]
The feeling which makes husband and wife true companions for better and worse can grow up only in societies where the altruistic sentiments of man are strong enough to make him recognize woman as his equal, and where she is not shut up as an exotic plant in a green-house, but is allowed to associate freely with men. In this direction European civilization has been advancing for centuries, and there can be no reason to fear that it will ever be permanently diverted from the path by which alone some of the most important of its ends can be attained.
When affection came to play a more prominent part in human sexual selection, higher regard was paid to intellectual, emotional, and moral qualities, through which the feeling is chiefly provoked. Later on, we shall see how great are the consequences which spring from this fact. For the present it may be enough to say that the preference given to higher qualities by civilized men contributes much to the mental improvement of the race. Dr. Stark observes that the intemperate, profligate, and criminal classes do not commonly marry; and the like is to a large extent true of persons who are very inferior in intellect, emotions, and will.[2107]
Affection depends in a very high degree upon sympathy. Though distinct aptitudes, these two classes of emotions are most intimately connected: affection is strengthened by sympathy, and sympathy is strengthened by affection. Community of interests, opinions, sentiments, culture, and mode of life, as being essential to close sympathy,[2108] is therefore favourable to warm affection. If love is excited by contrast, it is so only within certain limits. The contrast must not be so great as to exclude sympathy.
Great difference of age is fatal to close sympathy. Wieland noted that most people who fall in love do so with persons of about their own age;[2109] and statistics prove the observation to be correct. Men who marry comparatively late in life usually avoid too great difference in age.[2110] The foundation of this admiration and preference, modified by age, says Mr. Walker, “appears to be the similarity of objects and interests which are inseparable from similar periods of life, the association of these with a similar intensity of sexual desire, the consequent production of similar sympathy, and the resolve that it shall be permanent.”[2111]
A very important factor is similarity in the degree of cultivation. It seldom happens that a “gentleman” falls in love with a peasant-girl, or an artizan with a “lady.” This does more than almost anything else to maintain the separation of the different classes, and to preserve the existing distribution of wealth among the various groups of society.
Want of sympathy prevents great divisions of human beings—such as different races or nations, hereditary castes, classes, and adherents of different religions—from intermarrying, even where personal affection plays no part in the choice of the mate. Thus many uncivilized peoples carefully avoid marrying out of their own tribe, the chief reason being, I think, the strong dislike which distinct savage and barbarous nations have for one another. Mr. McLennan called such peoples “endogamous,” in contradistinction to peoples who are “exogamous,” _i.e._, do not marry within their own tribe or clan. But this classification has caused much confusion, “exogamy” and “endogamy” not being real contraries. For there exists among every people an outer circle—to use Sir Henry Maine’s very appropriate terminology—out of which marriage is either prohibited, or generally avoided; as well as an inner circle, including the clan, or, at any rate, the very nearest kinsfolk, within which no marriage is allowed.
Like the inner circle, the outer circle varies considerably in extent. Rengger states that many of the Indian races of Paraguay are too proud to intermarry with any race of a different colour, or even of a different stock.[2112] In Guiana and elsewhere, Indians do not readily intermix with negroes, whom they despise.[2113] Among the Isthmians of Central America, “marriage was not contracted with strangers or people speaking a different language”;[2114] and in San Salvador, according to Palacio, a man who had intercourse with a foreign woman was killed.[2115] Mr. Powers informs us of a Californian tribe who would put to death a woman for committing adultery with or marrying a white man;[2116] and among the Barolongs, a Bechuana tribe, the same punishment was formerly inflicted on any one who had intercourse with a European.[2117] Among the Kabyles, “le mariage avec une négresse n’est pas défendu en principe; mais la famille s’opposerait à une pareille union.”[2118]
The Chinese, according to Mr. Jamieson, refuse marriage with the surrounding barbarous tribes, with whom, as a rule, they have no dealings, either friendly or hostile.[2119] The black and fairer people of the Philippines have from time immemorial dwelt in the same country without producing an intermediate race;[2120] the Bugis of Perak have kept themselves very distinct from the people among whom they live;[2121] and, in Sumatra, it is a rare thing for a Malay man to marry a Kubu woman.[2122] The Munda Kols severely punish a girl who is seduced by a Hindu, whereas intercourse with a man of their own people is regarded by most of them as quite a matter of course.[2123] And, in Ceylon, even those Veddahs who live in settlements, although they have long associated with their neighbours, the Sinhalese, have not yet intermarried with them.[2124]
Count de Gobineau remarks that not even a common religion and country can extinguish the hereditary aversion of the Arab to the Turk, of the Kurd to the Nestorian of Syria, of the Magyar to the Slav.[2125] Indeed, so strong, among the Arabs, is the instinct of ethnical isolation, that, as a traveller relates, at Djidda, where sexual morality is held in little respect, a Bedouin woman may yield herself for money to a Turk or European, but would think herself for ever dishonoured if she were joined to him in lawful wedlock.[2126]
Marriages between Lapps and Swedes very rarely occur, being looked upon as dishonourable by both peoples. They are equally uncommon between Lapps and Norwegians, and it hardly ever happens that a Lapp marries a Russian.[2127] At various times, Spaniards in Central America, Englishmen in Mauritius, Frenchmen in Réunion and the Antilles, and Danish traders in Greenland, have been prevented by law from marrying natives.[2128] Among the Hebrews, during the early days of their power and dominion, marriages with aliens seem to have been rare exceptions.[2129] The Romans were prohibited from marrying barbarians; Valentinian inflicted the penalty of death for such unions.[2130] Tacitus was of opinion that the Germans refused marriage with foreign nations,[2131] and the like seems to have been the case with the Slavs.[2132]
Among several peoples marriage very seldom, or never, takes place even outside the territory of the tribe or community. This is the case with many tribes of Guatemala,[2133] the Ahts,[2134] Navajos,[2135] and Pueblos.[2136] In the village of Schawill, in Southern Mexico, according to Mr. Stephens, “every member must marry within the rancho, and no such thing as a marriage out of it had ever occurred. They said it was impossible, it could not happen.... This was a thing so little apprehended that the punishment for it was not defined in their penal code; but being questioned, after some consultations, they said that the offender, whether man or woman, would be expelled.”[2137] Speaking of the Chaymas in New Andalusia, among whom marriages are contracted between the inhabitants of the same hamlet only,[2138] v. Humboldt says, “Savage nations are subdivided into an infinity of tribes, which, bearing a cruel hatred toward each other, form no intermarriages, even when their languages spring from the same root, and when only a small arm of a river, or a group of hills, separates their habitations.”[2139] This holds good especially for several of the Brazilian tribes.[2140] In ancient Peru it was not lawful for the natives of one province or village to marry those of another.[2141]
In Equatorial Africa, according to Mr. Du Chaillu, the non-cannibal tribes do not intermarry with their cannibal neighbours, whose peculiar practices are held in abhorrence.[2142] Barrow states that the Hottentots always marry within their own kraal;[2143] and a Bushman woman would regard intercourse with any one out of the tribe, no matter how superior, as a degradation.[2144] Among the Hovas, the different tribes, clans, and even families as a rule do not intermarry, as Mr. Sibree says, “in order to keep landed property together, as well as from a strong clannish feeling.”[2145] Mr. Swann informs me that, among the Waguha, of West Tanganyika, marriages out of the tribe are avoided, though not prohibited; and Archdeacon Hodgson writes that this is very often the case in Eastern Central Africa.
In India there are several instances of tribe-or clan-endogamy.[2146] The Tipperahs and Abors, for example, view with abhorrence the idea of their girls marrying out of their own clan,[2147] and Colonel Dalton was gravely assured that, “when one of the daughters of Pádam so demeans herself, the sun and the moon refuse to shine, and there is such a strife in the elements that all labour is necessarily suspended, till by sacrifice and oblation the stain is washed away.”[2148] The Ainos not only despise the Japanese as much as the Japanese despise them, but are not very sociable even among themselves: one village does not like to marry into another.[2149] The same may be said of the Sermatta Islanders;[2150] whilst the Minahassers,[2151] the Dyaks,[2152] and the natives of New Guinea[2153] and New Britain,[2154] as a general rule, marry within their own tribe. Among the New Zealanders, according to Mr. Yate, “great opposition is made to any one taking, except for some political purpose, a wife from another tribe,” and marriage generally takes place between relatives.[2155] In Australia there are groups of tribes, so-called associated tribes, generally speaking the same dialect, who are in the habit of uniting for common defence and other purposes. Marriage between the members of associated tribes is the rule,[2156] but many tribes are mostly endogamous.[2157]
In ancient Wales, according to Mr. Lewis, marriage was to be within the clan.[2158] At Athens, at least in its later history, if an alien lived as a husband with an Athenian woman, he was liable to be sold as a slave, and to have his property confiscated; and, if an Athenian lived with a foreign woman, she was liable to like consequences, and he to a penalty of a thousand drachmæ.[2159] Marriage with foreign women was unlawful for all Spartans, and was made unlawful for the Heraclidæ by a separate rhetra.[2160] At Rome, any marriage of a citizen with a woman who was not herself a Roman citizen, or did not belong to a community possessing the privilege of _connubium_ with Rome—which was always expressly conferred—was invalid; no legitimate children could be born of such a marriage.[2161] In early times it was even customary for a father to seek, for his daughter, a husband from his own _gens_, marriage out of it being mentioned as an extraordinary thing.[2162]
Prohibitions of intermarriage do not refer only to persons belonging to different nations or tribes; very often they relate also to persons belonging to different classes or castes of the same community. Yet in many, perhaps most, cases these prohibitions originally coincided. Castes are frequently, if not always, the consequences of foreign conquest and subjugation, the conquerors becoming the nobility, and the subjugated the commonalty or slaves. Thus, before the Norman conquest, the English aristocracy was Saxon; after it, Norman. The descendants of the German conquerors of Gaul were, for a thousand years, the dominant race in France; and until the fifteenth century all the higher nobility were of Frankish or Burgundian origin.[2163] The Sanskrit word for caste is “varna,” _i.e._, colour, which shows how the distinction of high and low caste arose in India. That country was inhabited by dark races before the fairer Aryans took possession of it; and the bitter contempt of the Aryans for foreign tribes, their domineering spirit, and their strong antipathies of race and of religion, found vent in the pride of class and caste distinctions. Even to this day a careful observer can distinguish the descendants of conquerors and conquered. “No sojourner in India,” says Dr. Stevenson, “can have paid any attention to the physiognomy of the higher and lower orders of natives without being struck with the remarkable difference that exists in the shape of the head, the build of the body, and the colour of the skin between the higher and the lower castes into which the Hindu population is divided.”[2164] This explanation of the origin of Indian castes is supported by the fact that it is in some of the latest Vedic hymns that we find the earliest references to those four classes—the Brahmans, the Kshatriyas, the Vaiśyas, and the Śudras—to which all the later castes have been traced back.[2165] The Incas of Peru were known as a conquering race; and the ancient Mexicans represented the culture-heroes of the Toltecs as white.[2166] Among the Beni-Amer, the nobles are mostly light coloured, while the commoners are blackish.[2167] The Polynesian nobility have a comparatively fair complexion,[2168] and seem to be the descendants of a conquering or superior race. “The chiefs, and persons of hereditary rank and influence in the islands,” says Ellis, “are, almost without exception, as much superior to the peasantry or common people, in stateliness, dignified deportment, and physical strength, as they are in rank and circumstances; although they are not elected to their station on account of their personal endowments, but derive their rank and elevation from their ancestry. This is the case with most of the groups of the Pacific, but particularly so in Tahiti and the adjacent islands.”[2169] Among the Shans, according to Dr. Anderson, “the majority of the higher classes seemed to be distinguished from the common people by more elongated oval faces and a decidedly Tartar type of countenance.”[2170] In America, at the time of the earliest European immigration, a kind of caste distinction arose, white blood being synonymous with nobility; and, in La Plata, Spaniards, Mestizoes, and Indians were separated from each other even in church.[2171]
As descendants of different ancestors, members of noble families keep up their separate position, and remain almost as foreigners to the people among whom they live. Speculating on the want of sympathy among the various classes in societies in which such distinctions are recognized, Count de Tocqueville says, “Each caste has its own opinions, feelings, rights, manners, and modes of living. Thus the men of whom each caste is composed do not resemble the mass of their fellow-citizens; they do not think or feel in the same manner, and they scarcely believe that they belong to the same human race.... When the chroniclers of the Middle Ages, who all belonged to the aristocracy by birth or education, relate the tragical end of a noble, their grief flows apace; whereas they tell you at a breath, and without wincing, of massacres and tortures inflicted on the common sort of people. Not that these writers felt habitual hatred or systematic disdain for the people; war between the several classes of the community was not yet declared. They were impelled by an instinct rather than by a passion; as they had formed no clear notion of a poor man’s sufferings, they cared but little for his fate.” Then, in proof of this, the writer gives extracts from Madame de Sévigné’s letters, displaying a cruel jocularity which, in our day, “the harshest man writing to the most insensible person of his acquaintance” would not venture wantonly to indulge in; and yet Madame de Sévigné was not selfish or cruel: she was passionately attached to her children, and ever ready to sympathize with her friends, and she treated her servants and vassals with kindness and indulgence.[2172]
It is to this want of affection and sympathy between the different layers of society, together with the vain desire of keeping the blood pure, that the prohibition of marriage out of the class, or the general avoidance of such marriages, owes its origin. Among the Ahts, for instance, who take great pride in honourable birth, a patrician loses caste unless he marries a woman of corresponding rank, in his own or another tribe.[2173] Among the Isthmians of Central America, the lords married only the daughters of noble blood; and, in Guatemala, marriage with a slave reduced the freeman to a slave’s condition.[2174] The tribes of Brazil also consider such alliances highly disgraceful.[2175]
Nowhere are the different orders of society more distinctly separated from each other than in the South Sea Islands. In the Marianne group, it was the common belief that only the nobles were endowed with an immortal soul; and a nobleman who married a girl of the people was punished with death.[2176] In Polynesia also, the commoners were looked upon by the nobility almost as a different species of beings.[2177] Hence in the higher ranks marriage was concluded only between persons of corresponding position; and if, in Tahiti, a woman of condition chose an inferior person as a husband, the children he had by her were killed.[2178] In the Indian Archipelago, marriages between persons of different rank are, as a rule, disapproved, and in some places they are prohibited.[2179] Among the Hovas of Madagascar, the three great divisions—the nobles, the commoners, and the slaves,—with few exceptions, cannot intermarry; neither do the three different classes of slaves marry each other.[2180] Almost the same rule holds good for the different orders of the Beni-Amer and Marea;[2181] whilst, among the Tedâ, the smiths form an hereditary and utterly despised caste by themselves, being obliged to marry solely with members of their own caste.[2182] By several African peoples, however, slaves and freemen are allowed to intermarry.[2183]
The Aenezes of Arabia never intermarry with the “szona,” handicraftsmen or artizans; nor do they ever marry their daughters to Fellahs, or to inhabitants of towns.[2184] In India, intermarriage between different castes was in Manu’s time permissible, but is now altogether prohibited. Of the original four castes, the Brahmans alone have retained their purity to any extent, but there is an almost endless number of trade-castes, resulting chiefly from associations of men engaged in the same occupation.[2185] Moreover, as Sir Monier Williams remarks, “we find castes within castes, so that even the Brahmans are broken up and divided into numerous races, which again are subdivided into numerous tribes, families, or sub-castes ... which do not intermarry.”[2186] Class-endogamy prevails in Ceylon,[2187] Siam,[2188] and Corea;[2189] and in the Chittagong district, when a slave marries, the person chosen must be a slave.[2190] In China, play-actors, policemen, boatmen, and slaves are not allowed to marry women of any other class than that to which they respectively belong.[2191] And in Japan, before the year 1868, when a new order of things was introduced, the different classes of nobles were not permitted to intermarry with each other or with common people.[2192]
In Europe there have been similar prohibitions. In Rome, plebeians and patricians could not intermarry till the year 455 B.C., nor were marriages allowed between patricians and clients. Cicero himself disapproved of intermarriages of _ingenui_ and freedmen, and, though such alliances were generally permitted under the Emperors, yet a senator could not marry a freed-woman, nor a patroness her liberated slave. Between freemen and slaves _contubernium_ could take place, but not marriage.[2193] Among the Teutonic peoples, in ancient times, any freeman who had intercourse with a slave was punished with slavery, and a woman guilty of such a crime might be killed. In the Scandinavian countries, slavery came to an end at a comparatively early period, but in Germany it was succeeded by serfdom; and equality of birth continued to be regarded as an indispensable condition of lawful marriage. As late as the thirteenth century any German woman who had intercourse with a serf lost her liberty.[2194] From the class of freemen, both in Germany and in Scandinavia, the nobility gradually emerged as a distinct order, and marriages between persons of noble birth and persons who, although free, were not noble, came to be considered misalliances.[2195] In Sweden, in the seventeenth century, such marriages were punished.[2196]
Modern civilization tends to pull down the barriers which separate the various classes of society, just as it tends to diminish the differences in interests, habits, sentiments, and knowledge. Birth no longer determines to the same extent as before a man’s social position, and nobility has become a shadow of what it was. Thus there survive but few traces of the former class-endogamy. According to German Civil Law, the marriage of a man belonging to the high nobility with a woman of inferior birth is still regarded as a _disparagium_; and the woman is not entitled to the rank of her husband, nor is the full right of inheritance possessed by her or by her children.[2197] Although in no way prevented by law, marriages out of the class are generally avoided by custom. “The outer or endogamous limit, within which a man or woman must marry,” says Sir Henry Maine, “has been mostly taken under the shelter of fashion or prejudice. It is but faintly traced in England, though not wholly obscured. It is (or perhaps was) rather more distinctly marked in the United States, through prejudices against the blending of white and coloured blood. But in Germany certain hereditary dignities are still forfeited by a marriage beyond the forbidden limits; and in France, in spite of all formal institutions, marriages between a person belonging to the _noblesse_ and a person belonging to the _bourgeoisie_ (distinguished roughly from one another by the particle ‘de’) are wonderfully rare, though they are not unknown.[2198]
Different nations, like the different classes of society, have been gradually drawing nearer to each other. National prejudices have diminished, and international sympathy has increased. During the Middle Ages a foreigner was called in Germany “ein Elender,” because he stood outside the law;[2199] to-day he enjoys the protection of the law in all civilized countries, and is not as a foreigner an object of prejudice. This widening of sympathy, and improved means of communication, have of course made intermarriages between the several nations much more common than they used to be.
Religion, finally, has formed a great bar to intermarriage. In British India, the descendants of all the Mohammedan races—Arab, Iranian, Turanian, Mongol, and Hindu converts—intermarry, but there are few unions between Christian men and Mohammedan women.[2200] Indeed, according to Mr. Lane, such a marriage is not permitted under any circumstances, and cannot take place otherwise than by force. On the other hand, it is held lawful for a Mohammedan to marry a Christian or a Jewish woman, if induced to do so by excessive love of her, or if he cannot obtain a wife of his own religion. In this case, however, the offspring must follow the father’s faith, and the wife does not inherit when the husband dies.[2201] Marriage with a heathen woman is never permitted to a Mussulman.[2202]
It is mainly religion that has kept the Jews a relatively pure race. “The Jew,” says Dr. Neubauer, “has no preference for, or any aversion from, one race or another, provided he can marry a woman of his religion, and _vice versa_.”[2203] Indeed, the Jewish law does not recognize marriage with a person of another belief,[2204] though there are instances of such marriages in the early days of Israel.[2205] During the Middle Ages, marriage between Jews and Christians was prohibited by the Christians also, and universally avoided.[2206] “The folk-lore of Europe,” Mr. Jacobs remarks, “regarded the Jews as something infra-human, and it would require an almost impossible amount of large toleration for a Christian maiden of the Middle Ages to regard union with a Jew as anything other than unnatural.” Mr. Jacobs thinks it may be doubted whether even at the present day there is one mixed marriage to five hundred pure Jewish marriages.[2207]
St. Paul indicates that a Christian was not allowed to marry a heathen,[2208] and Tertullian calls such an alliance fornication.[2209] In early times, the Church often encouraged marriages of this sort as a means of propagating Christianity, and it was only when its success was beyond doubt that it actually prohibited them.[2210] The Council of Elvira expressly forbade Christian parents to give their daughters in marriage to heathens, ordering that those who did so should be excommunicated.[2211]
Even the adherents of different Christian confessions have been prohibited from intermarrying. In the Roman Church the prohibition of marriage with heathens and Jews (_impedimentum cultus disparitatis_) was soon followed by the prohibition of “mixed marriages” (_impedimentum mixtae religionis_); and the Protestants also originally forbade such unions. The Greek Church, on the other hand, made in this respect a distinction between _schismatici_, or those who dissent from the Church in non-essential points only, and _haeretici_, or those who dissent from its fundamental doctrines.[2212] Mixed marriages are not now contrary to the civil law either in Roman Catholic or in Protestant countries; but in countries belonging to the Orthodox Greek Church the ecclesiastical restrictions have been adopted by the State. In Russia, Greece, and Servia, Roman Catholics and Protestants are regarded as _schismatici_ but in the Turkish countries as _haeretici_.[2213] It is noteworthy that, in countries which are partly Roman Catholic, partly Protestant, mixed marriages form only a comparatively small percentage of the whole number of marriages.[2214]
In no respect has modern civilization acted more beneficently than as a promoter of religious toleration. In our time difference of faith discourages sympathy to a much less extent than it did in former ages. Hence the number of mixed marriages everywhere tends to increase. In Bavaria, for instance, they amounted in 1835-1850 to 2·8 per cent. of the whole number of marriages, in 1850-1860 to 3·6 per cent., in 1860-1870 to 4·4 per cent., in 1870-1875 to 5·6 per cent., and in 1876-1877 to 6·6 per cent.[2215]
While, therefore, civilization has narrowed the inner limit, within which a man or woman must not marry, it has widened the outer limit within which a man or woman _may_ marry, and generally marries. The latter of these processes has been one of vast importance in man’s history. Originating in race-or caste-pride, or in religious intolerance, the endogamous rules have, in their turn, helped to keep up and strengthen these feelings. Law is by nature conservative, maintaining sentiments developed under past conditions. It is only by slow degrees that the ideas of a new time become strong enough to release mankind from ancient prejudices.
* * * * *
We have hitherto dealt only with the poetry of sexual selection—love; now something is to be said of its prose—dry calculation. And we may conveniently begin with man’s appreciation of woman’s fertility, as this has some of the characteristics of an instinct. Desire for offspring is universal in mankind. Abortion, indeed, is practised now and then, and infanticide frequently takes place among many savage peoples; but these facts do not disprove the general rule.
Speaking of the Crees, Chippewyans, and other Indians on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains, Harmon says that “all Indians are very desirous of having a numerous offspring.”[2216] Among the Ingaliks, “children are anxiously desired, even when women have no husbands.”[2217] Among the Mayas, disappointed couples prayed earnestly, and brought many offerings to propitiate the god whose anger was supposed to have deferred their hopes.[2218] “Be numerous in offspring and descendants,” is a frequent marriage benediction or salutation in Madagascar; for to die without posterity is looked upon as a great calamity, and is termed “dead as regards the eye.”[2219] A negro considers childlessness the greatest disaster which can happen to him;[2220] Bosman once asked one of the king’s captains in Fida how many children he had, and he answered, sighing, that he was so unhappy as not to have many—he could not pretend to have had above seventy, including those who were dead. Among the Waganda and Wanyoro, great rejoicings take place in the case of the birth of twins.[2221] The Shaman heathens of Siberia regarded an abundance of children and cattle as the most essential condition of a man’s happiness.[2222] “Honest people have many children,” a Japanese proverb says;[2223] the Chinese regard a large family of sons as a mark of the divine favour;[2224] and to become the father of a son is described in Indian poems as the greatest happiness which may fall to the share of a mortal.[2225] In Persia, childlessness is considered the most horrible calamity.[2226] One of the chief blessings that Moses in the name of God promised the Israelites was a numerous progeny; and the ancient Romans regarded the procreation of legitimate children as the real end of marriage.[2227] “He who has no children, has no happiness either,” the South Slavonians say;[2228] and German folk-lore compares a marriage without offspring with a world without sun.[2229]
A woman therefore is valued not only as a wife but as a mother. Nowhere has greater stress been laid on this idea than in ancient Lacedaemon. A husband, if he considered that the unfruitfulness of the marriage was owing to himself, gave his matrimonial rights to a younger man, whose child then belonged to the husband’s family; and to the wives of men who, for example, fell in battle before having children, other men, probably slaves, were assigned, that there might be heirs and successors to the deceased husband.[2230] Among many peoples the respect in which a woman is held is proportionate to her fecundity,[2231] and a barren wife is frequently despised as an unnatural and useless being.[2232] In Angola, according to Livingstone, in the native dances, “when any one may wish to deride another, in the accompanying song a line is introduced, 'So and so has no children, and never will get any.’” The offended woman feels the insult so keenly that it is not uncommon for her to rush away and commit suicide.[2233] Among the Creeks, a man always calls his wife his son’s mother;[2234] and, among the Todas, in addressing a man with the casual question, “Are you married?” the ordinary way of putting it would be to say, “Is there a son?”[2235]
It is obvious, then, that fecundity must be one of the qualities which a man most eagerly requires from his bride. Mr. Reade tells us that, in certain parts of Africa, especially in malarious localities, where women are so frequently sterile, no one cares to marry a girl till she has borne a child; and among the Votyaks, according to Dr. Buch, a girl gets married sooner if she is a mother.[2236]
We have seen several instances of husband and wife not living together as married people before the birth of a child. Among the Creeks, marriages were contracted for a year, but if they proved fruitful, they were, as a rule, renewed.[2237] Again, with regard to an order of the Essenes, Josephus states that, considering succession to be the principal part of human life, they tried their spouses for three years, and then married them only if there was a prospect of the union being fruitful.[2238] Among many peoples it is the practice for a man to repudiate a barren wife.
The desire for offspring, with its consequence, the appreciation of female fecundity, is due to various causes. First, there is in man an instinct for reproduction. Mr. Marshall remarks, “Of this desire for progeny I have seen many examples amongst the Todas, so strongly marked, but to all appearances apart from the sense of personal ambition, and separate from any demands of religion or requirements for support in old age, as to give the impression that it was the primitive faculty of Philoprogenitiveness, acting so insensibly, naturally, as to have the character more of a plain instinct, than of an intelligent human feeling.”[2239] With this instinct a feeling of parental pride is associated. “Children,” says Hobbes, “are a man’s power and his honour.”[2240]
Among the Hebrews and the ancient Aryan nations, the desire for offspring, particularly sons, had its root chiefly in religious belief, being a natural outcome of the idea that the spirits of the dead were made happy by homage received at the hands of their male posterity. The same is the case with the Chinese[2241] and Japanese,[2242] and perhaps, to a certain extent, with some peoples at a lower stage of civilization. The savage believes that the life which goes on after death, differs in nothing from this life, that wants and pursuits remain as before, that consequently the dead man’s spirit eats and drinks, and needs fire for warmth and cooking. It is, of course, his surviving descendants who have to see that he is well provided for in these respects. Hence the offerings to deceased ancestors for various periods after death and the feasts for the dead.[2243] Among the Thlinkets according to Holmberg, it sometimes happens that a man spends his whole fortune as well as his wife’s marriage portion on such a feast, and has to live as a poor man for the rest of his life.[2244]
But no doubt children are most eagerly longed for by savage men because they are of use to him in his lifetime. They are easily supported when young, and in times of want they may be left to die or be sold. When a few years old, the sons become able to hunt, fish, and paddle, and later on they are their father’s companions in war. The daughters help their mother to provide food, and, when grown up, they are lucrative objects of trade. Finally, when old, the parents would often suffer want had they not their children to support them.[2245] Hence, in a savage condition of life, children are the chief wealth of the family. And the same is the case at somewhat higher stages of social development. Mr. Lane remarks that, in Egypt, “at the age of five or six years, the children become of use to tend the flocks and herds; and at a more advanced age, until they marry, they assist their fathers in the operations of agriculture. The poor in Egypt have often to depend entirely upon their sons for support in their old age; but many parents are deprived of these aids, and consequently reduced to beggary, or almost to starvation.”[2246] To a certain extent, this holds good for the uneducated classes in Europe also.
With the progress of civilization the desire for offspring has become less intense. The religious motive has of course died out in the Christian world, and, in proportion as social life becomes more complicated, and a professional education becomes more necessary for success in the struggle for existence, children, at least in “the upper classes” and among towns-people, put their parents to expense instead of being a source of wealth. A childless couple may indeed, deplore the absence of children; but a woman is no longer held in respect only, or principally, as a mother; and marriage, according to modern ideas, is something more than an institution for the procreation of legitimate offspring. Yet it is remarkable that, in Switzerland, although barrenness is no sufficient reason for a man to repudiate his wife, two-fifths of the total number of divorces take place between married people who have no children whilst the sterile marriages amount only to one-fifth of the number of marriages.[2247]
A wife is of use to her husband not merely because she gives him labourers, but also because she herself is a labourer. Drying and preparing fish and meat, lighting and attending to the fire, transporting baggage, picking berries, dressing hides and making clothes, cooking food and taking care of the children—these are, in the savage state, the chief pursuits of a wife. Among agricultural and cattle-farming peoples, she has besides, to cultivate the soil and to tend the cattle. A wife, therefore, is chosen partly because of her ability to perform such duties. Thus, among the Greenlanders, cleverness in sewing and skill in the management of household affairs are the most attractive qualities of a woman.[2248] Among other Eskimo tribes and in Tierra del Fuego, middle-aged men will connect themselves with old women who are best able to take care of their common comforts.[2249] The Inland Columbians, according to Mr. Bancroft, make “capacity for work the standard of female excellence;”[2250] and, among the Turkomans, young widows fetch double the price of spinsters, because they are more accustomed to hard labour, and more experienced in household concerns.[2251]
A husband’s function is to protect his family from enemies and to prevent them falling into distress. A woman, as we have already seen, even instinctively prefers a courageous and strong man to one who is cowardly and feeble. But reflection also makes her choose a man who is well able to defend her and to provide food. Among the Comanches, says Mr. Parker, “young girls are not averse to marry very old men, particularly if they are chiefs, as they are always sure of something to eat.”[2252]
At more advanced stages of civilization, money and inherited property often take the place of skill, strength, and working ability. Thus, wife-purchase and husband-purchase, still persist in modern society, though in disguised forms.