The Sexual Question Part 16

It has also been suggested that selection produces the s.e.x which is deficient in numbers; but here again proofs are wanting. It has been maintained that crossing tends to breed females, while consanguineous marriages produce males; in other words, that mongrel races show an excess of female births, while races in which marriages are very consanguineous, and polyandrous tribes show an excess of males. It is much better to leave this question alone till science has furnished us with conclusive proofs. Certain results obtained with the lower animals give hope that the future may shed some light on this point.

Again, marriage customs are not always in relation to the excess of one of the s.e.xes. Races in which men predominate are not always polyandrous, and those in which women are in excess are not always polygamous; sometimes even the contrary exists. Polygamy is thus not always due to a surplus of female births, or to the death of many men, but often to religious prescripts, as among the Islamites and Mormons.

In polyandry, poverty often plays a greater part than consanguineous marriages or surplus of male births. Religious prescription of the husband's continence during his wife's menstrual periods, pregnancy, and even the period of nursing, a period which often lasts from two to four years in savages, is an important cause of polyandry. At Sierra Leone, coitus of the husband with his wife before the last-born child can walk is regarded as a crime.

Although very advantageous to the wife's health this custom is entirely based on religious ideas and superst.i.tions. Many savages consider that every woman is impure and bewitched during her monthly periods, during pregnancy and suckling. If we add to this the fact that, being usually treated as beasts, the women soon grow old, we can easily understand that the men are inclined to polygamy. It is remarkable with what rapidity the savage woman grows old. She is only fresh from thirteen to twenty years; after twenty-five she is old and sterile, and a little later she has the aspect of an old sorceress.

This premature senility is not so much due to early s.e.xual intercourse as to the terribly hard work they undergo, and also to the prolonged period of suckling.

Another cause of polygamy is man's natural desire for change. The negroes of Angola exchange wives. The instinct of procreation, love of glory and riches cooperate with the sterility of many women in propagating polygamy. Certain races only tolerate it when the woman is sterile, or has only daughters, which clearly proves that it is based on the fear of remaining without male descendants.

On the whole, savage women are less fecund than civilized, owing to their long continence during the two or four years nursing of each child. If we add to this the high infant mortality, we can understand how polygamy becomes among these people a means of reproduction in the struggle for existence, and even in African races a natural law. A native of Central Africa may have a hundred wives, who also act as servants and retainers. In this case polygamy is the expression of pomp and wealth. It is especially developed in agricultural peoples owing to the value of the woman's labor. On the other hand it is impossible among nomadic tribes. In Dahomey the king had thousands of wives, the n.o.bility hundreds, the simple citizen a dozen and the soldier none at all.

Jealousy and rivalry among the wives is not always the rule in polygamous families. In equatorial Africa the wives themselves incline to polygamy and regard a rich man who restricts the number of his wives as miserly. Livingstone relates that the women of Makololo declared they would not live in monogamous England, for any respectable man should prove his wealth by the number of his wives. We must not forget that among most savages the moral conception of good and evil are confounded with that of riches and poverty. In reality, the supernumerary wives bought by a polygamist are simply slaves. His power and authority do not easily allow jealousy among them; nevertheless suicide sometimes occurs among the old wives who have been pa.s.sed over in favor of younger ones. Sometimes they kill their children at the same time. Among the Indians of Terra del Fuego a hut containing three or four women often resembles a battlefield. We have already pointed out the way in which jealous Fiji women cut off the noses of their rivals. Among the Islamites and Hindus intrigue and jealousy are common with the women; the same in Abyssinia, among the Hovas of Madagascar and the Zulus. The Hova term for polygamy is _rafy_, which signifies adversary. To prevent the jealousy of his wives the polygamous man often places them in separate houses; this is common among the South American Indians.

In Colombia I made the acquaintance of a French explorer, Le Comte de Brettes, who has studied closely the Goajires Indians by becoming himself a member of the tribe. The country of the Goajires is a peninsula of Colombia bordering on Venezuela. Polygamy among these people is very interesting. When a young Goajire wishes to marry he has to pay the bride's parents a number of cattle, but the consent of the bride is necessary. Besides this the husband has to clear a certain area of forest, plant vegetables and build a hut. He must then make a present of all this to his wife and add to it the necessary cattle. The wife thus becomes the legal proprietor of the house and land, and it is she who rules over the domain. The husband only has authority over the male children; but the wife is strictly enforced to be faithful. If he wishes to marry a second wife, he is obliged to buy her also and present her with similar property as the first, in another district. The two wives can never dwell together in the same house nor in the same district; each of them is thus a proprietor on her own account. In this manner the different wives of a Goajire are not only independent, but separated from each other and have no communication; this excludes all jealousy, especially as these women have a deep respect for the laws of their country. Under such conditions polygamy can hardly extend to more than two women without exhausting the forces a man requires to cultivate each of the domains.

We thus see that certain forms of polygamy, combined with matriarchism, are compatible with high social position of the wife, for among the Goajires and other Indian tribes the man pa.s.ses from one wife to the other, while it is the wife who is mistress of the house, the children and the domain.

However, we may say that on the whole monogamy reigns where there is more altruism, respect for women and sentiment for family life; for instance, in Nicaragua, among the Dyaks, the Andamanese, etc., in whom the wife is highly esteemed and possesses political influence. The wife is also proprietor of the house among the Santalese and Mounda-Kols.

In the question we are considering the nature of the amorous pa.s.sions also plays a great part. When they are purely sensual they do not last long as a rule; but when love arises from mental affinities it may be prolonged till old age. Bain remarks that other pa.s.sions, such as maternal love, hatred, the desire of domination may be extended to many objects, while love has a tendency to concentrate itself on a single one which then takes preeminence over the others and tends to monogamy. We have seen that birds and monkeys generally love only one female. With some conjugal love is so strong that one of the conjoints cannot survive the other; this fact has been observed with certainty, even when the survivor was provided with another mate. Thus, the male of a certain species of monkey (_Hapale jacchus_) after the death of his mate, covers his eyes with his hands, ceases to eat and remains in the same position till he dies. Suicide for love is not rare among certain savage races; a point to which we shall return later.

Westermark is certainly right in considering this tendency of love to concentrate itself on a single object as one of the most powerful factors in monogamy. Jealousy is no doubt the reverse of such sentiment, but is the profound despair at seeing the sole object of love desert or become unfaithful. On the other hand, this concentration of love, which may be excellent for isolated families living alone after the manner of wild beasts, is in no way adapted to a society of which all the members are responsible. This is a point we must insist upon. There is certainly a real antinomy which is difficult to reconcile between this dual egoism of exclusive and concentrated love and social solidarity or human altruism. The problem is not insoluble, but we must admit that the solution is not easy.

To resume, we first of all observe an evolution from monogamy toward polygamy. The higher apes and the most primitive men are monogamous; among these there are no differences of rank, nor cla.s.s distinctions, and they live in very small groups. Wealth, civilization, larger communities, agriculture and the domination of castes have gradually given rise to polygamy. Thus, the ancient Hindus were at first monogamous and later on became polygamous. The prerogative of the first wife over the others is only a vestige of monogamy in polygamy.

A higher degree of culture then diminishes warfare, shortens the period of nursing, does away with the prejudices against coitus during pregnancy, and improves the social position of women. Ageing less quickly, and adding to her bodily charms those of her mental development woman restores man to monogamy. As the same time wives and children gradually cease to const.i.tute riches, and this diminishes the instinct of procreation. Finally, machinery replaces the female labor of former times. In this way, with a higher degree of human culture, all the factors tend to restore monogamy.

The instinctive desires of woman are monogamous. The progress of civilization is continually extending her rights, and the more refined sentiments of sympathy among civilized people are less and less compatible with polygamy. As regards polyandry, Westermark shows that it has always been an exception and that it has only been established among phlegmatic races, having a certain degree of civilization and being unacquainted with jealousy.

Spencer believes that monogamy will prevail in the future, while Lubbock inclines to polygamy. Westermark thinks that if the progress of civilization continues as. .h.i.therto to become more altruistic, and that if love tends to become more refined, the conjoints having more and more regard for each other, monogamy will always become more strict.

For my part, I think it idle to prophesy. If mental culture ever succeeds in overcoming brutality and barbarism, and if it continues to make real progress, I do not think that any of the old systems of marriage will persist in their primary form. Primitive monogamy adapted to an unsocial savage condition, is incompatible with the social requirements which become more and more imposed upon humanity.

Marriage by purchase and Islamite polygamy, which regard woman as merchandise and place her entirely under the dependence of man, are barbarous customs of semi-civilized people, which have already fallen into disuse. Polyandry is contrary to human nature and to the requirements of reproduction, and its implantation is everywhere a sign of decadence. Our present religious monogamy, completed by the shameful promiscuity of prost.i.tution, is both hypocritical and unhealthy. Till the contrary is proved, I consider the most advantageous form of marriage for the future a kind of free monogamy (eventually polygamy), accompanied by obligations relative to the procreation of children and to the children procreated. Polyandry should only have an accessory right to existence in certain pathological or exceptional cases. We shall return to this point later.

DURATION OF MARRIAGE

Among birds, marriage is generally concluded for life; among mammals rarely for more than a year, with the exception of the anthropoid apes and man.

The duration of marriage varies enormously in man. Among the Andamanese, the Weddas, certain Papous, marriage can only cease with death. Among the North American Indians, on the contrary, it is only concluded for a limited period. Among the Wyandottes the custom exists of trial marriages for several days. In Greenland, divorce often takes place at the end of six months. Among the Creeks marriage does not last more than a year. In this way is const.i.tuted a kind of polygamy by succession or limited monogamy, which results in the father not knowing his children.

Among the Botocudos, marriage is performed without ceremonies and only lasts a short time; it can be broken off on the slightest pretext, for the pleasure of changing; divorce then becomes as frequent as marriage. This is also the case in Queensland, Tasmania and the Samoan islands. Among the Dyaks and Cingalese, quite young men and women have already had several wives or husbands; a man often marries and deserts the same woman several times, to take others during the intervals.

Among the Mantras there are men who have been married forty or fifty times.

In Persia a woman may marry for periods varying from one hour to ninety-nine years. In Egypt similar customs are met with; a monthly change is allowed, so that a man may marry twenty or thirty times in two years. Among the Maues of Sahara the women consider it fas.h.i.+onable to marry as often as possible, and a long married life is considered by them as vulgar. The Abyssinians, negroes, etc., marry on trial or for limited periods. Among the Greeks, Romans and ancient Germans, divorce was very frequent.

In nearly all savage tribes, and in a number of civilized people the man possesses an unlimited right of rejection. The Hovas compare marriage to a loosely tied knot. Among the ancient Jews, Romans, Greeks and Germans, discontent of the husband was a sufficient reason for rejection. On the contrary, among a number of savage races (Westermark mentions about twenty-five) rejection and divorce are extremely rare and marriage lasts for life.

It is especially where there are children that divorce is rare. With most races, sterility of the wife and adultery const.i.tute the princ.i.p.al causes of legal divorce.

Among civilized races marriage for life is much more common than with savages. This was the case with the Aztecs, etc. Among the Chinese there exist seven reasons for divorce: sterility, unchast.i.ty, negligence toward parents-in-law, talkativeness, desertion, ill-temper and chronic disease. In j.a.pan the laws are similar, but in spite of this divorce is rare in China and j.a.pan.

In Christian countries divorce was formerly permitted and was only prohibited by the Council of Trent. The modern Catholic says: "Man must not separate what G.o.d has united." Among many savages, on the contrary, divorce is left to the free will of the married couple.

Elsewhere it is sometimes the man, sometimes both husband and wife who have the right to exact divorce for divers reasons, such as drunkenness, adultery, prodigality, etc. In Europe, as elsewhere, it is the desire for change which is the most common cause of divorce.

Children const.i.tute the surest cement against conjugal separations.

With most savages the rejected wife regains not only her _dot_, but also part of the common property, or even the whole of it. On the contrary, the purchase value of the wife is only as a rule returned to the husband when sterility, adultery or other grave reasons are the causes of divorce. It results from this that divorce is always very rare among peoples where the women are very dear.

The right of the children after divorce varies a good deal in different races; sometimes they are adjudged to the husband, sometimes to the wife. Divorced women often become prost.i.tutes, for example, among the Chinese and Arabs. As a rule, marriages for love are more lasting than others, especially when the couple were acquainted before marriage.

It is extremely probable that in primitive man marriage only lasted till the birth of a child, or at the most a few years. With civilization the duration of marriage has been prolonged, higher motives having become added to bodily charms, s.e.xual appet.i.te and the instinct of procreation, and tending toward more lasting unions.

Moral reasons have given rise to laws of protection in marriage, but the mania which man possesses of dogmatizing on everything has often caused these laws to degenerate into abuse or religious absurdities.

In this way the modern form of our Christian monogamy has been imposed by a tyrannical dogma of the Roman Church; a dogma which no doubt started from an ideal point of view, but fell into disuse in practice, owing to the fact that it did not take sufficient account of the natural conditions and s.e.xual requirements of the race. This explains the present tendency to greater legal liberty, even when the moral causes which tend to render monogamous unions durable multiply with the progress of civilization.

HISTORY OF EXTRA-CONJUGAL s.e.xUAL INTERCOURSE

As monogamous marriage exists among the anthropoid apes, we have every reason to believe that it existed with primitive man. In neither case has it been the result of artificial laws, but the result of brute force and congenital instincts inherited by natural evolution. It often happened that one male vanquished another and took possession of the female, or wife, of the vanquished. Others abducted the female by surprise. Later on, marriage by exchange or by purchase, derived from marriage by rape, probably const.i.tuted the first stage toward a legal monogamous or polygamous union, as an element in the most primitive human conventional organizations. In this way we can imagine the main points of the prehistoric evolution of marriage.

When the conception of marriage took on a legal character, either that of possession by the male, or that of a more or less equitable contract between the two s.e.xes, we can easily imagine that s.e.xual intercourse apart from marriage resulted as an inevitable complement.

Every artificial barrier which the human mind opposes to natural instincts immediately gives rise to a movement of opposition on the part of the latter. The matrimonial laws of primitive or semi-civilized races punished adultery in the most barbarous manner by torture and death, but were unable to prevent the s.e.xual pa.s.sions pursuing their course in one way or another.

Certain abuses or exceptions had, therefore, to be tolerated, or certain complementary inst.i.tutions had to be organized. However, these laws generally branded all forms of s.e.xual intercourse apart from marriage, with the stigma of inferiority, or contempt, if not of crime. The woman, being the weaker, was naturally the one to suffer most from this stigma and its consequences.

The great diversity in the customs of different human tribes, makes it necessary, in order to avoid errors, to guard against generalizing without strong reasons. We cannot, however, here enter into details which would lead us too far. We can, however, affirm that among the lower or primitive races brute force played the princ.i.p.al role and was the fundamental support of marriage, while in higher civilizations legal regulation took the upper hand, however absurd or even immoral it might be.

Illegal or extra-conjugal forms of s.e.xual intercourse have always formed two princ.i.p.al groups: _prost.i.tution_ and _concubinage_. No doubt, these two varieties are insensibly connected by numerous shades of transition, but as their development depends on different principles we must distinguish these two forms.

Prost.i.tution is a trade in which a human being sells her body for money, while concubinage consists in more or less free s.e.xual intercourse apart from marriage, the motive of which is simply the s.e.xual appet.i.te, convenience or love, although sometimes violence plays a part in it. We therefore find in extra-marital s.e.xual intercourse the same motives as in legal unions; legal or religious sanction only is wanting.

It is needless to say that the motives which lead to concubinage may be more or less tainted by interested calculation. In all civilizations concubinage and prost.i.tution const.i.tute the complement of legal marriage. Their regulation has ever produced the singular results of surrounding them with a moral nimbus.

In Babylon, every woman once in her life, had to prost.i.tute herself for money to any stranger at the temple of Venus. Solon founded houses of prost.i.tution for the people and furnished them with slaves, "in order to protect the sanct.i.ty of marriage against the pa.s.sions of youth."

The Romans had also their houses of prost.i.tution or lupanari, public or private, as well as free prost.i.tutes. In the Middle Ages, prost.i.tution developed especially after the Crusades. It is related that the Council of Constance attracted fifteen hundred prost.i.tutes to this town. Prost.i.tutes followed the armies everywhere.

In India, young girls give themselves to the priests, who are the representatives of G.o.d and enjoy great honors. Under the name of Temple girls, the girls of the flower boats of China are really prost.i.tutes. It is the same with the puzes of Java, the girls in the j.a.panese tea-houses, etc. In some civilized states, certain refined and intelligent prost.i.tutes have always obtained great honors and high favors, only charging high prices, and ending by subst.i.tuting for prost.i.tution the pecuniary exploitation of rich men whom they have seduced.

Concubinage may be more or less free. The concubines were formerly often slaves, possessed by men in high positions, in addition to their wives. At the present day the omnipotence of money produces almost a.n.a.logous results. Free concubinage, in which s.e.xual intercourse between the two contracting parties is absolutely free and more or less independent of pecuniary questions, is very different and of a higher moral character. It has also existed in antiquity in various forms. The Greek hetairas were concubines of high position, no doubt prost.i.tutes of a kind and giving themselves for money; but they became the friends or companions of great men. Living in luxury, especially at the time of Pericles and later, several of them became celebrated; statues were raised to them and they became the concubines of kings.

Phryne served as the model for the statue of Venus, and offered to restore the halls of the Thebeans at her own expense. Thais was the mistress of Alexander and gave heirs to the throne. The neglected education of the Greek wives caused the intellectual accomplishments of the hetairas to s.h.i.+ne by contrast.

The whole question regarding the Greek customs is summed up in a few words by Demosthenes: "We marry wives in order to have legitimate children and a faithful guardian for our household; we have concubines for our daily service, and hetairas for the enjoyment of love."

In some countries, such as j.a.pan, the children of concubines are considered by the husbands as legitimate, and have the same rights as those of his wife; this gives concubinage the character of marriage of the second rank.

In modern times hetairas are not wanting. Under the t.i.tle of courtesans and mistresses, we find them everywhere as the favorites of kings and n.o.bles, as mistresses of men in high positions, and often playing the part of vampires in all cla.s.ses of society.

On the other hand, women of high position or wealth have also their favorites, whom we may call male hetairas. Certain female members of royal families have at all times furnished examples of this kind.