CHAPTER VI

ETHNOLOGY AND HISTORY OF SEXUAL LIFE IN MAN AND IN MARRIAGE In the study of the sexual question it is absolutely necessary to guard against subjectiveness and all preconceived theory, and to avoid sentimentalism as well as eroticism. These two dangers play a considerable part in the study of human sexual life. Presented in a conscientious and scientific way the history of marriage furnishes us the most trustworthy material for the study of the sexual relations of man in social life. It is from this material that we can learn the relative importance of the different psychological and psycho-pathological factors in social evolution. But, to furnish valid material, history must not only be based on trustworthy and veracious sources; it must also give a comparative study of the sexual relations which exist in most, if not all, of the peoples actually existing. The present savage tribes no doubt resemble more closely the primitive peoples than our hybrid agglomeration of the civilized world. Moreover, the modern study of ethnology gives us more certain information than the uncertain, incomplete and often fabulous statements of ancient documents. I am speaking here of primitive history, and not of the Greek and Roman civilizations. Unfortunately the correctness of ethnological observations, and especially their interpretation, still leave much to be desired. Edward Westermark, professor at Helsingfors, in his "History of Human Marriage," has given us a monumental work, which is remarkable, not only for the richness and exactness of its material, but also for the clearness and good sense of its criticism. I shall give a _résumé_ of Westermark's results, as the subject is beyond the domain of my special studies. The author has collected a great number of observations in order to avoid erroneous conclusions. He warns the reader against a hasty generalization, which attributes without proof certain customs of living savage tribes to our primitive ancestors. ORIGIN OF MARRIAGE In the previous chapter we have considered the phylogeny of love in general. We have seen that some of the lower animals, such as the ants and bees, give evidence of an instinctive social altruism much greater than that of man, while other animals, such as birds, are superior to us as regards monogamous conjugal fidelity. But it is a question here of analogies due to phenomena of convergence, and these animals are of interest to us only as remote objects of comparison. As regards marriage in primitive man, we can only compare ourselves with the living animals most closely allied to us, viz. the _anthropoid apes_. In most mammals, marriage (if we may give this name to their sexual union) is only of very short duration, depending on the time necessary for the procreation of a single brood of young. After copulation the male generally pays little attention to the female, beyond protecting her for a certain time. In the anthropoid apes (orang-utan, chimpanzee, gorilla and gibbon) however, we find monogamous marriage and the institution of family life. The male protects the female and the young, and the latter are often of different ages, showing the existence of conjugal fidelity extending beyond one birth. While the female and the young remain in their nest, perched on a tree, the male takes his place at the foot of the tree and watches over the safety of the family. According to Westermark this was probably the same in primitive man. Formed by the father, the mother and the children, the family was in primitive man a general institution, based on monogamy, polygamy or polyandry. The wife looked after the children, and the husband protected the family. No doubt, the husband was not particularly anxious for the welfare of his wife and children, but concerned himself chiefly in the satisfaction of his sexual appetite and his pride. He was useful, however, in building the nest, or hut, in procuring the necessary food, and in defending his family. Most legends relate that primitive man lived in promiscuity with women, without marriage, and that marriage was instituted by some god or by some law. But this opinion, which is still held by most modern authors, is quite erroneous, as Westermark has demonstrated in a masterly manner, by the aid of documents which are absolutely conclusive. The duty of the husband to provide food for the family is a general law among savage peoples. A confirmation of this law is found in the fact that most often in polygamous races the man has only the right to as many wives as he can support. Every man must give proof that he is capable of feeding his family. Even after divorce the husband's duties continue, and may even be transmitted to his heirs. For example, among certain peoples, his brother is obliged to marry his widow. The husband's duties appear to be inherited from the higher apes, among whom conjugal fidelity lasts longer than the sexual appetite. This fidelity has therefore deep phylogenetic roots in our nature, and we shall see later on that we cannot neglect it without compromising our social state (Chap. XIII). The following is the definition of marriage as given by Westermark: _Marriage is a sexual union of variable duration between men and women, a union which is continued after copulation, at least till the birth of the child._ According to this definition, there may be monogamous, polygamous and polyandrous marriages, as well as marriage in groups and limited marriage. It is evident that permanent monogamous unions, such as occur in birds and the higher apes, are, according to this definition, true marriages, of better quality even than those of many men. Among animals which have a definite rutting period, marriage cannot depend solely on the sexual appetite, or egoistic eroticism, without ceasing with the rut. It follows from this that natural selection and the mneme (engraphia) have derived from the sexual appetite certain social or altruistic instincts, with the object of preserving the species by protection of the young. Although not the only means of preserving the species, such instincts are certainly important. The family is thus the root of marriage. This explains the custom, among certain races, of marriage only becoming valid after the birth of a child. In many forms of marriage by purchase, the wife is even bound to return to her husband the sum paid for her if she remains sterile, and among many savages the marriage is only celebrated after the birth of the first child. In Borneo, relations between the sexes are free till pregnancy occurs, and it is this which determines the duties of marriage. In this respect, these savages are more just and wiser than us. In man, a special reason in favor of marriage is the fact that he has no rutting period. In animals the rutting period is generally regulated so that the young are born exactly at the time of year when they will find food most abundant. For example, the muscardin copulates in July and brings forth young in August, at the time when nuts are ripe, while elephants, whales and certain monkeys, who find food at all seasons, do not copulate at any definite period. The anthropoid apes, however, have a rutting period, and something analogous is found among certain human races (Californians, Hindus and certain Australians) in the spring, when sexual orgies are indulged in. In man there is no particular correlation between eroticism and the possibility of easily obtaining food for the children at the time of birth. Nevertheless, a recrudescence of the sexual appetite is generally observed in the spring and beginning of summer, with a corresponding increase in the number of conceptions. This is probably explained by the fact that infants born in the autumn or winter are more robust. Moreover, natural selection has almost entirely ceased in civilized peoples, owing to the artificial means used to rear children, and to the diminution which results from their mortality. We thus see that the institution of marriage in man does not depend on the excitation of the sexual appetite, for this is, on the whole, continuous. ANTIQUITY OF MATRIMONIAL INSTITUTIONS The fact that the anthropoid apes produce feeble and dependent young, whose infancy is long, has probably been the origin of marriage. Kautsky says that in primitive man the child belongs to the clan; but this is an error. Originally, human societies were composed of families, or rather associations of families. In primitive man, these families play the fundamental role and constitute the nucleus of society. In the anthropoid ape we already find the family, but not the clan. This must also have been the case with the pithecanthropoids and other extinct transitory forms. In fact, the lowest savages still live as isolated families like the carnivorous mammals, rather than in clans or tribes. This is the case, for example, with the Weddas of Ceylon, the indigenes of Terra del Fuego, the aboriginal Australians, the Esquimaux and certain Indians of Brazil. In this way they have better conditions for subsistence. In primitive times therefore, man lived in families, on the produce of the chase. Later on, the spirit of discovery, the more abundant food obtained by traps and by the cultivation of plants allowed men to live in tribes. Thus, intellectual development was the first cause of social life in man, and Lubbock is certainly wrong in considering that the establishment of clans dates further back than the first beginning of civilization. Westermark's conclusions are as follows: (1). _At no period of human existence has family life been replaced by clan life._ (2). _Conjugal life is a heritage from ancestors who lived in a similar way to the anthropoid apes of the present day._ (3). _Although less intimately and less constantly bound to the children than to the mother, the father has always been in man the protector of the family._ CRITICISM OF THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISCUITY Most sociologists believe with Lubbock, Bachofen, MacLennan, Bastian, Giraud-Teulon, Wilkens, and others that primitive man lived in sexual promiscuity. If we agree with Westermark that the term marriage includes polygamy, polyandry and limited marriage, the opinion of these authors is wrong. What they have considered as promiscuity can always be included in one of these forms of marriage, even among the indigenes of Hayti, whose life is the most debauched. The author who has most confused the question is Fison, with his dogmatic theories concerning the Australians. Obliged to admit that promiscuity does not exist among these people, he still maintains that it existed formerly. Curr, who was better acquainted than Fison with the Australians, has proved that they are normally monogamous. Similar statements of Bastian, Wilkens and others concerning the Kustchins, the natives of Terra del Fuego, are also incorrect. In none of the African tribes is there communion of women, the men, on the other hand, are extremely jealous. Promiscuity is not observed among savage and primitive races, but among people already civilized, such as the Buddhist Butias, in whom man knows neither honor nor jealousy. The savage Weddas are monogamous, and one of their proverbs says: "Death alone can separate woman from man." There is in reality only one true form of promiscuity--the prostitution of modern civilized races, who have introduced it among savages, subjecting them to gratify their own lust. Among many savage races there exists, on the contrary, a very severe monogamy, and they punish with death every seducer and illegitimate child, as well as the mother. Among others, however, considerable sexual freedom is allowed before or after marriage. It is impossible to lay down definite rules, but one thing may be regarded as universal, viz., that the sexual depravity of savage races most often arises from the influence of civilized people who immigrate among them and systematically introduce immorality and debauchery. It is the white colonists who appropriate the women of savage races and train them in the worst forms of prostitution. It is the white colonists who introduce alcoholic drink which disorganizes the most virtuous and loyal habits, and ends with ruin. Certain Arab clans exploit European habits of prostitution by sending their young girls to brothels for purposes of gain. When they have accumulated a sufficient fortune they return home and marry one of their fellow countrymen. Similar customs are observed among other races. In this connection Westermark points out that the more advanced is civilization, the greater is the number of illegitimate births, and the more widespread is prostitution. In Europe, the proportion of natural children and of prostitutes is nearly double in the towns what it is in the country. This shows the absurdity of regarding promiscuity as a primitive state; on the contrary, it is a rotten fruit of civilization, and especially of semi-civilization. Primitive customs are generally chaste, and it is civilization which corrupts them. In Europe, prostitution is increasing, while marriage is becoming less frequent; it is the latter which constitutes the primitive and normal state. Westermark admits, as we have mentioned above, that sexual liberty before or after marriage exists among certain tribes; but in spite of this the custom of careful choice always exists among these people, and this renders their unions comparatively lasting. He cites as an example the Tounghtas of India, who practice sexual connection before marriage, but among whom these connections nearly always lead to marriage; this race considers prostitution as dishonorable. We must, however, make one objection to Westermark. Promiscuity in itself is not necessarily prostitution, for the latter signifies especially the sale of the body, which is not the case in promiscuity. The fundamental fact which prevents us admitting the existence of primitive promiscuity among savage races is the following: As soon as the two sexes are free, the monogamous instinct of the woman and jealousy of both sexes combine to reëstablish marriage. True promiscuity can only exist by means of a sort of legal obligation, such as exists in the colony of Oneidas in New York. In this colony the members formally agree to mutual and free sexual intercourse. We must not forget that prostitution is only kept up in women by the thirst for lucre, and ceases immediately this element disappears. Before the Reformation there existed in Scotland a singular custom called "hand-fasting," by which young men had the right to choose a companion for a year, at the end of which time they could either separate or become married according to their inclination. On the other hand, Lubbock mentions certain customs in Greece and India, the worship of _phallus_, for example, which obliged young girls to give themselves to all men. But these customs were not among primitive races but resulted from the eroticism of highly civilized nations. Thus, Lubbock's argument concerning the existence of primitive promiscuity falls to the ground. Certain savage nations offer their daughters or their servants, rarely their wives, to their guests. A _jus primæ nocti_ (right to the first night) has also existed and will sometimes exist in some tribes, but this right is reserved for the chiefs, kings or priests, and allows them to have sexual intercourse before the husband with every newly married woman during the first night of the nuptials. This is a barbarous custom based on the right of the stronger, and analogous to the privileges claimed by the European nobles from their serfs or peasants. But such abuses do not constitute promiscuity, as Lubbock maintains. In many countries the courtesans and concubines were held in high esteem, and are so even at the present day, more than is supposed; but this again is not a question of promiscuity. Morgan has deduced his theories of promiscuity from terms employed in certain savage dialects to designate relationship. These conclusions are false and Morgan, like others, has been led into error by the obscurity of the language of these people. The simple fact that paternal parentage is recognised among them proves the absurdity of Morgan's reasoning, for promiscuity cannot recognize paternal parentage. In 1860 Bachofen drew attention to the ancient custom of naming the children after the maternal side, and it is now certain that this custom has existed among many primitive races, while in others children were named after the paternal side. The term _matriarchy_ is given to denomination after the maternal side. MacLennan maintains the existence of matriarchy in promiscuity, but this is inadmissible. Maternity is self-evident, while paternity can only be proved indirectly by the aid of reasoning. No doubt all nations appear to have recognized the real part which the father takes in every conception, and from this results the singular custom among certain tribes, in which the husband retires to his couch and fasts during the accouchement of his wife. Westermark explains matriarchy in a simpler and more natural way, by the intimate relations of the child to the mother. Children, especially when they are still young, follow the mother when she separates from the father. Matriarchy is quite natural in marriages of short duration, with change of wives, and in polygamy; while, in monogamous nations, it is _patriarchy_, or denomination after the paternal line, which dominates. Among nations where the denomination of uncles exists, and where the married woman lives with her family till she has a child, matriarchy results quite naturally from this fact. In Japanese families who have only daughters, the husband of the eldest takes his wife's family name. Among savages in general, the name has a great importance. When rank and property are only inherited in the female line, the children are always named after this line. We are thus concerned here with very complex questions which have nothing to do with promiscuity. Maine has proved that prostitution and promiscuity lead to sterility and decadence. Among the few tribes in which polyandry is the rule, especially in Thibet, several brothers generally have the same wife. But they usually alternate, and never dwell together. In the fifteenth century, in the Canary Islands, every woman had three husbands, each of whom lived with her for a month, and the one who was to possess her during the following month had to work both for her and for the other two husbands. Polyandry has always originated in scarcity of women. The jealousy of men, which has never ceased to exist, gives the clearest proof of the impossibility of promiscuity. Polyandry is only possible among a few feeble and degenerate races who ignore jealousy. These tribes are diminishing and tend to disappear. The jealousy of savages is generally so terrible that among them a woman who commits adultery is usually put to death along with her seducer. Sometimes they are content with cutting off her nose or inflicting other chastisement. It is from jealousy that results the obligation of chastity in the woman. Religious ideas on the future of man after death are often combined with these ideas; this is why chastity, death, or even all kinds of torture are, in certain countries, imposed on the woman after death of the husband. It must not be forgotten that among most savages the wife is regarded as the property of her husband. If the latter lends his wife to a guest, he offers her as part of a feast. This is not, however, promiscuity, and we must understand that these people have quite different sentiments to ours. In clans or tribes the most powerful men have always had the youngest and most beautiful wives. To sum up, there is not the shadow of proof in support of the doctrine of primitive promiscuity, a doctrine which is based on purely hypothetical grounds. MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY Among animals the voluntary celibate exists only among the females of certain birds which have become widowed, and even then the case is rare. In savage man, nearly every individual marries, and the women look upon celibacy or widowhood almost in the same way as death. The savage despises celibates as thieves or sorcerers. In his opinion a man without a wife is not a man. He therefore marries at a much earlier age than civilized man, sometimes even (in Greenland) before fecundation is possible. Among certain Indians men sometimes marry at the age of nine or ten years, generally between fourteen and eighteen; the girls between nine and twelve. In some comparatively civilized nations the celibate is so much despised that they go as far as marrying the spirits of departed children! Among the Greeks, celibates were punished, and among the Romans they were taxed heavily. Celibacy becomes more rare the further we go back in the history of the human race; celibacy increases with the corruption of morals. It is civilization which does most harm to marriage, especially in the large towns, and the age at which people marry becomes more and more advanced, although in Europe there are more women than men. Want of money and insufficient salaries diminish more and more the number of marriages in the large centers, while among savages, and also among our peasants, the women and children are one of the principal sources of wealth, because they work and have few needs. Among the middle classes, on the contrary, the wife is a source of expense, as well as the education of the children. For men, the length of intellectual and professional education (and military service in many countries) cause marriage to be postponed and celibacy is obligatory at the time when the sexual appetite is most powerful. Thus, the more civilization advances, the longer is marriage postponed. The refinement and the multiplicity of pleasures also diminish the attractions of marriage. Lastly, intellectual culture exalts the desire for the ideal, so that men and women well suited to each other meet less frequently, as their mutual adaptation becomes more complicated. Nevertheless, I must repeat here what I have already said concerning the way in which novelists present us with the extreme passions of ill-balanced people and describe them as types, the normal man being too prosaic to attract their readers. Rotten as it is with neurotic degenerates, our modern society is certainly not wanting in pathological models for the novelists, but it is nevertheless false to always put these into prominence. The cultured man of well-balanced mind, adapts himself to marriage on the whole very well, and is not always so difficult to please. However, it must be recognized that marriage becomes less easy if a too high ideal is expected from it. With characteristic prudence, Westermark does not answer the question whether marriage will progressively diminish in the future. =The Cult of Virgins. Sanctity of the Celibate.=--Among many savages the singular idea obtains that there is something impure in sexual intercourse. The celibacy ordained by several religions originates from ideas of this kind. Many nations have worshiped virgins, for instance the vestal virgins of the Romans. The mother of Buddha was declared to be holy and pure, Buddha having been conceived supernaturally, according to the legend. A Buddhist monk is forbidden to have sexual intercourse, even with animals! Celibacy among certain priests exists also in China. Among the Hebrews, the idea of the impurity of marriage had got a footing, and this no doubt powerfully influenced Christianity. St. Paul thus places celibacy higher than marriage, and this is how the idea became established among the fathers of the Church that the repression of all sensuality was a cardinal virtue, and that God had contemplated in paradise an asexual reproduction of the human species, which was annulled by the fall of Adam. Men who remained pure were to be immortal. "The earth is filled with marriage and the heavens with virginity," says Jeremiah. Such are the ideas which have given rise to the obligation of celibacy for priests. Westermark thinks that the idea of impurity attached to sexual intercourse is possibly derived from the instinctive repugnance experienced by members of the same family to have sexual intercourse between themselves. Banished from the family circle this intercourse was tainted with a stigma which offended modesty, and by the association of ideas so common in man, this stigma was extended to legal marriage outside the family. Moreover, religious celibacy is complicated by ascetic conceptions, and the idea of the impurity of sexual intercourse is by no means general. For my part, I think rather that the jealousy natural to both sexes has gradually compelled them to limit their sexual intercourse to intimacy and to conceal it. But man is ashamed of everything which he conceals, and we shall soon see that the sentiment of modesty concerns all parts of the body which are concealed. This simple fact is sufficient to give rise to the idea that coitus is impure, and I do not think it necessary to seek any further explanation. ADVANCES MADE BY ONE SEX TO THE OTHER--DEMANDS IN MARRIAGE A natural law compels the male germinal cell to move toward the egg; exceptions to this law are rare, the female germinal cells being larger and produced in less number. It follows that in copulation, or the union of individual sexual entities, man included, it is the male which is the active party and makes the advances. Among certain tribes (Paraguayans, Garos, Moquis), however, it is the female who makes the advances. Everyone knows the combats for the female which takes place between the male of animals, cocks and stags for example. Among certain Indians similar struggles are also observed, after which the vanquished has to surrender his wife to the conqueror. The same custom obtained among the ancient Greeks, as we see in the suitors for Penelope. In Ireland similar customs prevailed up to the last few centuries. On the other hand, we often see among savages and among birds the favors of the female obtained by assiduous courtship rather than by combat. In some savage tribes struggles take place between the females for possession of the male. However, it is usually coquetry in all its degrees which furnishes woman with the basis for her advances. In many nations, if not in most, women have the right to refuse a demand for marriage. METHODS OF ATTRACTION =Adornment in the Two Sexes.=--Vanity is older than man, for it is found in many animals. The lowest and most savage peoples adorn themselves. Tattooing, staining the skin, rings on the arms and feet, in the lips, nose and ears serve to attract one sex toward the other. A Santal woman may carry as much as fifteen kilogrammes of ornaments on her body. Vanity leads to incredible eccentricities, certain tribes, for example, pull out their teeth to increase their attractions. Absurdities of this kind are often associated with religious ideas, although the latter generally play a secondary part. The true origin of these customs lies in vanity, combined with the sexual desire to captivate. In hot climates, at any rate, the savages only commenced to cover their bodies with clothes with the object of pleasing by personal adornment. The religious observances attached to the custom of adornment are not primitive. The latter is derived from the sexual appetite and from vanity, and has only been incorporated in the dogmas of religious mysticism after being first established in the habits of the people. Among savages the men are more inclined to personal adornment and to coquetry than the women. This is not due to the inferior social position of the women, for those who enjoy the greatest liberty are often less extensively tattooed than those who are reduced to slavery. The true reason is that the man risks much more than the woman by remaining celibate, and this obliges him to take more pains than the women to make himself fascinating. As a rule the wives of savages attach less importance to their personal appearance than to that of their husbands, and the vanity of the latter is guided chiefly by the taste of their wives. The objects with which savages adorn themselves are generally trophies. Among civilized people, on the contrary, the men have a much wider choice and many women remain celibate. This is one of the reasons which compel women to study their personal appearance and the art of flirtation. In Europe, earrings represent the last vestige of the savage methods of adornment. =Sentiment of Shame of the Genital Organs. Nudity.=--What is the origin of the fact that man is ashamed of his genital organs? Nothing of the kind occurs in animals. The psychologist, Wundt, maintains that man has always had a sexual sentiment of modesty. This is not correct, for many races present no trace of it, and sometimes cover all parts of their body except the genital organs. In some, the men, and in others the women go absolutely naked. Originally, clothes were only worn for adornment or for protection against the cold. The Massais would be ashamed to hide their penis, and it is their custom to exhibit it. Other savages cover the glans penis only with a small cap; they retire to pass water, but regard themselves as fully dressed so long as the glans penis is covered. The girdles and other garments of savage women are intended for ornament, and as a means of attraction; they have nothing to do with modesty. In a society where every one goes naked, nudity seems quite natural, and provokes neither shame nor eroticism. The custom of adorning the sexual organs then serves as a means of attraction, both in men and women. The short transparent skirts of a ballet dancer are in reality much more immodest than the nudity of the female savages. A great naturalist has said that veiled forms provoke the sexual appetite more than nudity. Snow remarks that association with naked savages excites much less sensuality than the society of fashionably dressed women in our salons. Read also remarks "Nothing is more moral or less calculated to excite the passions than nudity." It is needless to say that this statement is only correct when nudity is a matter of custom, for in sexual matters it is always novelty which attracts. Pious persons have tried to make savages modest by clothing them, but have only produced the contrary effect. Savage women regard it as shameful to cover their sexual organs. The naturalist, Wallace, found in one tribe a young girl who possessed a dress, but who was quite as much ashamed of clothing herself with it as one of our ladies would be of undressing before strangers. It is only owing to the custom of wearing clothes that nudity provokes the sexual appetite. This custom develops artificially a sentiment of modesty with regard to nudity, which increases progressively in intensity and is especially marked in aged women. It is not so much habit, as to the feeling of progressive deterioration of their charms, which leads the latter to cover themselves as they grow older, and is part of the instinctive æsthetic sentiment of woman. At the orgies and fêtes held among savages the women cover their sexual organs with certain objects, as a means to excite the men. Complete nudity is found more often in savage women than in the men. Later on when it became the custom to wear clothes, nudity became attractive and was considered shameful. This is why the Chinese feel shame at exposing their feet, the Mahometans their faces, and some savages even the ends of their fingers. Certain customs, like circumcision among the Jews, Polynesians and Australians; the artificial elongation of the lips of the vulva in Hottentots, Malays, and North American Indians, originated, according to Westermark, in the intention of exciting the sexual appetite, or of introducing variety into its satisfaction. Later on routine, which sanctions everything, transferred these customs into religious cult. It is possible, however, that among the Jews, who are a practical race, the hygienic advantage of circumcision took a part in its transformation into a rite. To resume, everything derogatory to established custom excites the sentiment of shame or modesty, not only in sexual matters but in others. Most children are ashamed of not behaving exactly as their comrades or their brothers and sisters, and are very uncomfortable if they are obliged to behave otherwise. All sentiments of morality and modesty rest on conventionalities. The savage women burst into laughter when the naked companions of Livingstone turned their backs from modesty. The sentiment of modesty or shame thus depends only on exceptional violation of an old custom. This is why unconventional ways in one of the sexes (especially in woman) tend to offend the sentiments of modesty, and usually excite the sexual appetite of the other sex. LIBERTY OF CHOICE IN MARRIAGE--PATRIARCHISM Among savages, the women sometimes have the right of giving their hand in marriage, sometimes not. The latter case is not surprising in countries where women are considered as merchandise. Among the Esquimaux every girl is betrothed from birth. Among the Boschimans, Ashantis, etc., the unborn girl is even betrothed while she is in her mother's womb! These betrothals are generally arranged by the maternal parents together with the mother. Very often, however, the consent of the woman is required; or, the marriage may be only valid after the birth of the first child on condition of the woman's consent. Among the American Indians, if the woman is not a consenting party she elopes with her lover and thus escapes the would-be-husband. In this way elopement has gradually become a recognized institution among certain races. I was told by a Bulgarian that the peasants in his country buy their wives from the father, generally for two or three hundred francs, but if the father demands too much, the women are raped. After this marriage becomes indispensable and the father receives nothing, for, in Bulgaria, which is not yet spoiled by civilization, unions apart from marriage are considered as a terrible disgrace. In certain races, the woman has a free choice among several men and her wish becomes law, so that the parents have no voice in the matter; this occurs among the natives of the Celebes. The bridegroom is nevertheless obliged to pay the dowry demanded. Similar customs prevail among other races. Westermark comes to the conclusion that in the primitive state of humanity the women had a much freer choice than afterward. Marriage by purchase developed later and constituted an intermediate stage. When the first civilizations became more complicated and recognized the value of woman's labor, the fathers began to sell their daughters, as we now see savage tribes abandon their women to prostitution with the white man. But in primitive times, when there was neither civilization, money, nor labor, properly so-called, each individual fought for his life and the father had no more possibility of selling his daughter as a slave than a gorilla or an orang-utan would have to-day. Marriage by rape, which occurred after wars when the women were abducted and married against their will, must not be confounded with marriage by elopement which takes place with the woman's consent, and of which the latest fashion is elopement by automobile. Among savages, the boys are also most often the property of the father, who has the right to sell them and even to put them to death. But they become free at the age of puberty and then have the right to marry according to their inclination without being forced by their parents. There existed and still exist many patriarchal races (certain Indians and Asiatics, for example) among whom the father possesses unlimited power. The older he is the more he is honored, and the more his power is uncontested. All the children and grandchildren, with their wives and children, eat at his table; none of his descendants can marry without his consent, etc. The effects of patriarchism are deplorable and very immoral. The patriarch abuses his power--gives his old wives to his children and takes the young ones, for example. The purest and most virtuous Japanese girl is obliged to go to a brothel if her father orders it. The patriarch has the power of life and death over both sexes, and from this is derived the cult of ancestors. At the present day we see immorality of this kind in the Russian patriarchism among the peasants; the fathers have the custom of misusing their sons' wives. Patriarchism thus degenerates into atrocious tyranny on the part of the chief of the family, who becomes looked upon as a god. A law which is common in the Latin races, which forbids marriage before the age of thirty, without the consent of the father, is a vestige of patriarchism. We see, therefore, that quite primitive savage races approached our most modern ideas in liberty of choice in marriage. Between these two periods humanity was under the yoke of a barbarous error--the intermediate stage of marriage by purchase and patriarchal autocracy. There has existed and still exists more than one aberration of this kind in the intermediate stages of civilization; for instance, torture, slavery and the use of narcotic substances, such as alcohol. SEXUAL SELECTION By sexual selection we mean union by choice among males and females. In the vertebrates, the female chooses much more commonly than the male, the latter being more disposed to pair with all the females than the females with all the males. We may certainly admit that this was also the case in primitive man, especially when there existed a rutting period, for then the sexual appetite was more violent. Moreover, even at the present day, women are on the average more difficult to please and more strict in their choice than men. In the case of hybrids it is generally the male which violates the law of instinct. Female slaves often flee from their free husbands, but we never see male slaves abandon their free wives. Among savage races the woman is always more difficult to please than the man. Among half-breeds, it is nearly always the father who belongs to a higher race. The inverse rarely occurs; it is exceptional for a white woman to marry a negro. The same thing is reproduced among ourselves; we often see a cultured man marry an uneducated woman, but a cultured woman seldom marries a laborer. It is especially among savages that the woman prefers the man who is strongest, most skillful, most ardent, and most audacious. Heroes always haunt the minds of women, who love to throw themselves at the head of conquerors. The ideal of certain women in Borneo is a husband who has killed many enemies and possesses their heads (head-hunters of Borneo). This psychological trait responds to natural selection, for the women obtain by this custom better protectors and stronger children. On the other hand, man looks instinctively for a young, healthy and well-developed woman. It is on this basis that Greek art formed Eros and Aphrodite, designating the latter as goddess of both love and beauty. =Conception of Beauty.=--The conception of beauty is very relative. The Australians laugh at our long noses and the natives of Cochin-China at our white teeth and red cheeks. Certain savage women bind their legs below the knees to make them swell, this effect being part of their idea of beauty. The Chinese admire the deformed feet of their women and their prominent cheek bones. In each nation the conception of beauty generally corresponds to the ideal type of the race, for both sexes. As a general rule muscle is admired in man and fullness of figure in woman. The Hottentots like women's breasts to be so pendulous that they can throw them over shoulder, and suckle the infants carried on their backs; they also admire the elongated lips of the vulva. There are, therefore, few general typical characters of sexual preference; these are especially the ideal type of the race and the health of both sexes, voluptuous forms and grace in women, muscular strength and dexterity in men. Everything else is relative and variable, and depends on the local point of view, customs, race, individual taste, etc. Thus, according to the conception of æsthetics, tattooing, the arrangement of the hair and beard, deformations of the nose, cranium, or feet, are admired by different peoples. Each race extols its own peculiarities; the European compares a woman's breasts to snow, the Malay to gold, etc. The natives of Coromandel paint their gods black and their devils white, while in Europe it is the reverse. The association of love with beauty is not based on æsthetic sentiments, for the latter are disinterested, while the original instinct of love is interested. The association of the two things depends on the instinctive necessity of health, combined with the sexual appetite, although custom has produced numerous aberrations. Everything which differs markedly from the type of the race is more or less pathological. This is why instinct, determined by natural selection, repels it. Fashion also rules among savages, but is less changeable among them than with us, and their taste for adornment only varies in the narrow circle of their customs. Climate has a powerful action on the types of races, the latter being generally adapted to the climate in which they live. Thus, the European becomes darker in the tropics while negroes and Indians become paler in the north. LAWS OF RESEMBLANCE--HYBRIDS Every animal species has an instinctive repugnance to pair with another. Even where they are possible, natural hybrids are rare, and only become a little more frequent in domestic animals and plants. The fecundity of hybrids diminishes when they have connection among themselves, and this explains why the instinct for such connections tends to gradually disappear. In his book on "The Mneme," Semon explains the infecundity of hybrids in a very plausible manner, by the disorder that a too large quantity of dissimilar hereditary engrams causes in the hereditary mneme of two conjugated cells. When the parents differ from each other only in a moderate degree homophony may still be reëstablished, and then the divergencies have a very favorable effect on the product, by the new combinations which they furnish in the course of its development. Moral ideas follow the course of instincts, and this explains why sexual connection with animals is regarded as a horrible crime. This is especially produced by pathological aberration, or when one sex is completely isolated from the other. There is also a certain degree of aversion to copulation between different races, in animals as well as man; for example, between sheep and horses of different races, and between white men, negroes and Indians. There are, however, many hybrids or half-breeds in South America, and in Mexico they even constitute two-thirds of the population. Broca maintained that human hybrids produced by the crossing of remote races, for example, between English and negroes or Australians, were usually sterile. Westermark disputes this, but agrees that these hybrids become enfeebled in a few generations. It has also been established that mixed marriage between Jews and Aryans are generally less fecund; but this fact is not yet sufficiently explained. Mulattoes, or hybrids between negroes and whites, constitute a degenerate race and hardly viable, at any rate if their descendants do not return entirely to one of the original races. Half-breeds between whites and American Indians, also called Ladinos, seem on the contrary to form a viable race, but one of little valor. PROHIBITION OF CONSANGUINEOUS MARRIAGES Sexual union between near relations nearly always causes a feeling of repugnance in man, and has been stigmatized by the term _incest_. Coitus between mother and son especially excites disgust. Sexual connection between parents and children, as well as between brothers and sisters is, however, common among certain tribes. Many other races allow marriage between brothers and sisters, but this is elsewhere generally condemned. Among the Weddas, marriage between an elder brother and his younger sister is considered normal, while that between a younger brother and his elder sister, or between a nephew and his aunt, is regarded as unnatural. The latter simply shows that unions between young men and old women are not natural. Unions between brothers and sisters, and especially between half-brothers and half-sisters were licit among the Persians, Egyptians, Syrians, Athenians and ancient Jews. Those between uncles and nieces (more rarely between aunts and nephews) are sometimes permitted, sometimes prohibited. With the exception of Spain and Russia marriages between first cousins are allowed in Europe. =Exogamy and Endogamy.=--Among many savages the prohibition of consanguineous marriage may be extended to relationship of the third degree. Marriage may even be prohibited among all members of the same tribe or clan, even when they are not related. This is called _exogamous_ marriage, and reaches its extreme development among the Australians, who are only allowed to marry into remote clans. We thus see that the great majority of savages extend their idea of incest much further than we do. The reason of this has been much discussed. It was formerly said that consanguineous marriage was contrary to the commandments of God; that it offended the natural sentiment of modesty; that it obscures relationship, etc. Nowadays, it is said to be injurious to posterity. Ethnography teaches us, however, that these statements are of little value. Along with the exogamy of many tribes there is among other savages a system of _endogamy_, described by MacLennan; this is the prohibition of marriage between different clans. Spencer and MacLennan have different explanations of this custom which seem hardly natural. Westermark appears to be nearer the truth in remarking as follows: The sexual appetite, especially in man, is excited by new impressions and cooled by habit. It is not the fact of a man and woman being related, but intimate companionship since youth, which produces in them a repugnance to sexual union. We find the same repugnance between adopted brothers and sisters and between friends who have been intimate since childhood. When, on the contrary, brothers and sisters or near relatives have been separated from each other since an early age, they often fall in love with each other when they meet later on. There is, therefore, no innate or instinctive repugnance to incest in itself, but only against sexual union between individuals who have lived together since childhood. As it is parents and their children who are usually in this situation, everything is explained simply and clearly. The causes of exogamy are explained in the same way, by the fact that members of the same clan often live together in close intimacy. It is the small clans, formed of thirty or fifty individuals of a few families living together, which have the most severe laws against incest or endogamy. Where the families live in separate homes, such prohibitions do not exist. The Maoris, who are endogamous, inhabit villages which are widely separated, and marriage between relations is allowed. Endogamy generally exists where the clan life is little developed, and where relatives know and see little of each other. The aversion to marriage between persons living together has thus created prohibition of marriage between relations as well as that of marriage between members of the same clan. It is the same reason which has led to the prohibition of marriage between brothers-and sisters-in-law, between brothers and adopted sisters, etc. In people living in small communities, endogamy does not appear to have ever existed. Incest between relatives living together appears to have everywhere the same natural cause--the scarcity of women in isolated families living in remote districts. There is also a psycho-pathological form of incest associated with morbid appetites in the families of degenerates. In animals living alone and whose families break up very rapidly (cats for example) incestuous unions, between parents and young, for instance, are quite common. Let us now consider the scientific side of the question. We see everywhere that sexual union between quite distinct animal species gives no result. At the most, certain closely allied species, such as the ass and the horse, the rabbit and the hare, give progeny which are themselves sterile (mules, etc.). The feebleness and sterility of hybrids derived from widely separated races or nearly allied different species proves the deficiency in vital force of the offspring of fundamentally dissimilar procreators. But, on the other hand, the dangers of continuous consanguineous reproduction are no less evident. Perpetual unions between brothers and sisters for several generations, lead to degeneration of the race. For example, the still-births will be 25 per cent. instead of 8 per cent., which is the figure in ordinary crossings. The prejudice against consanguineous unions may, however, depend on the accumulation of certain pathological defects. Westermark admits that it is difficult to show clearly that consanguineous marriages are prejudicial in man. The consanguinity which causes evil effects in animals concerns long-continued unions between parents and children or brothers and sisters. But this never occurs in man. Animals and plants may be perpetuated for many years in the closest consanguinity without degeneration resulting. Among the Persians and Egyptians, intimate unions have existed for a long time without producing degeneration. On the other hand, breeders of animals tell us that a single drop of new blood (or rather sperm) is enough to counteract all the evil effects of consanguinity. In man the most frequent incests are always interrupted by some other union. The Ptolemies, who nearly always married their sisters, nieces or cousins, lived long and were far from being sterile. In Ceylon, the Weddas perpetuate their consanguineous unions; insanity is rare among them, but they are small, unfruitful and tend to become extinct. In Europe, the question of marriages between first cousins has been much discussed, and it has been constantly attempted to prove that they are injurious. Nevertheless, when we examine the question impartially, we always find that the prejudices against them do not arrive from consanguinity, but from certain pathological defects, such as insanity, hemophilia, etc., which are naturally perpetuated by consanguineous unions when they are accumulated in one family, as well as when two insane persons of different families marry. Therefore it is not consanguineous unions in themselves (which are always accidental in man and interrupted by others) but the hereditary reproduction of pathological defects, often of blastophthoric origin, which are the real cause of the evil. Statistics have clearly proved that marriage between first cousins plays no part in the causes of insanity. Influenced, no doubt, by general opinion, Westermark tries to believe in some instinctive repulsion of man for consanguineous unions. If in modern society such unions, perpetuated between parents and children, brothers and sisters, were still produced as in animals I should agree that they might be injurious to the species; but, considering how cosmopolitan and mixed is our modern society, I cannot make the concession. On the contrary, I maintain that the isolated unions which still take place between relatives in civilized countries are so exceptional that they do not present the least danger, excepting among the families of degenerates. It is therefore only a question of superstition. What we have to guard against are unions between pathological individuals and blastophthoric influences. We must not forget that many degenerates and idiots have a great pathological tendency to incest, and this is no doubt why the effect has been confounded with the cause. Westermark himself gives us a striking example. Since the most remote times the inhabitants of the Commune of Bats, composed of 3,300 persons, have intermarried; yet this population is very healthy and vigorous and shows no sign of degeneration. On the other hand, we have seen that contrasts produce a mutual attraction in the domain of love, while strong resemblances rather repel. Bernardin de St. Pierre has said that love is created by contrasts; the greater the contrast the greater the love. Schopenhauer remarks as follows: "Every individual seeks in the opposite sex peculiarities which contrast with his own; the most masculine man seeks the most feminine woman, while small and feeble men love large and strong women; people with short noses prefer long ones, tall and thin men prefer short and stout women. All this increases fecundity." Thus instinct is sufficient to protect humanity against consanguinity, each sex instinctively seeking the contrasts which consanguinity diminishes. SENTIMENT AND CALCULATION IN SEXUAL SELECTION Youth, beauty, health, finery and flirtation excite the sexual appetite. Many other sentiments are accessory, such as admiration, the pleasure of possession, respect, pity, etc. Inclination is an important element, but in no way necessary to sexual union. In the lower stages of human development, tenderness toward children is much stronger than sexual love. Among many savage races the love of a man for his wife is completely wanting, as well as that of the wife for her husband. In this case marriage depends on reciprocal convenience, on the desire to have children, and profits by personal comfort and the satisfaction of a purely animal sexual appetite. However, among these people the parents have a tender regard for their children. The husband has the right to beat his wife, but the wife is considered as unnatural or even criminal if she beats her children. Among the North American Indians, for example, conjugal love is, so to speak, unknown. On the other hand, in other savage races, such as the Touaregs, the Niam-Niams, the New Caledonians, the Tonganese and Australians, the conjoints have a deep affection for each other, and the husband often commits suicide on the death of his wife. On the whole, the sentiments of affection of the conjoints are the result of a long sexual life in common, and they are especially strengthened by the love of the parents for their children. As a rule, the mutual attachment of conjoints for each other among cultivated races is developed along with altruism. The tenderness and refinement of love as they exist at the present day among highly civilized races were unknown to most savages and to the older civilizations. In China it is considered good manners to beat the wife, and when a poor Chinaman treats his wife with consideration, it is to avoid having to buy another. What the Arab understands by love is only sexual appetite, and among the ancient Greeks it was nearly the same. In civilized Europe mental culture progresses in the direction of equality of rights between the two sexes, so that a man regards his wife more as a companion who is his equal and no longer a slave. Community of interests, opinions, sentiments and culture constitute a primary condition for sentiments of mutual sympathy and favors affection. No doubt, excitation of the sexual appetite by contrasts acts here as an antagonistic force. Contrast should not be so great as to exclude sympathy. Too great difference in age is dangerous for attachment, for it causes too great a divergence in the aims and interests of life. Education and social equality also favors love, and this tends to preserve class distinction. It is rare for a well-educated man to fall in love with a peasant, or a laboring man with an educated woman, except in a sensual way. Men generally avoid marriage with individuals of another race, or of another religion. Endogamy and exogamy do not form such an absolute contrast as at first sight might appear. Even among exogamous races, there is a limit which must not be passed. These races often prohibit marriage with individuals of another race. Among the Arabs, for example, the instinct of ethnical separation is so strong, that the same Bedouin wife who will prostitute herself for money with Turks or Europeans, would think it dishonorable to marry one of them. In this way custom produces endogamy of caste and class among the same people. The same with the nobility; in ancient Rome it was forbidden for a patrician to marry a plebeian. Sometimes an endogamy of religious origin is met with, among the Jews for example. Children are treasures for the man of low culture, while they become a burden to the cultivated man. In spite of this the natural man ardently desires children. In Switzerland, two-fifths of the divorces occur in sterile unions, although the latter only form one-fifth of all marriages. Calculation often smothers sentiment when it becomes the basis of marriage. We live to-day under the sway of Mammon, with the result that the influence of love, strength, beauty, capacity for work, intelligence, skill, character and even health, count for little compared with money in the question of marriage. This sad sign is really a new form of marriage by purchase, hypocritically disguised. MARRIAGE BY RAPE AND MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE The rape of women is an established custom in some regions. Certain marriage ceremonies prove that rape was formerly much more common than at the present day. Among certain Indian tribes the simulation of rape and abduction of the woman form part of the marriage ceremonies; custom requiring that the woman must feign to resist. According to Spencer, marriage by rape originated in the prudery of woman, while MacLennan attributes it to the predominance of exogamy; but, in reality, marriage by rape exists in races which are absolutely endogamous. Westermark believes it arose from the repugnance to unions contracted in a narrow circle. The savage has difficulty in procuring a wife without giving the father compensation; besides, his own repugnance to the companions of his childhood and the prejudices against unions between relations, as well as the enmity of other clans, all increase the difficulties to be overcome. This is why he often decides on rape. Marriage by rape has not, however, been the rule at any period, and on the whole, unions concluded by mutual agreement have always predominated. Marriage by purchase has followed marriage by rape, and forms a slightly higher stage of civilization, developed by exchange of money or other symbols. It first appears, in Australia, for example, as marriage by exchange (exchange of a woman for a sister or a daughter). Afterward young men gain their wives by working as servants for the father. In marriage by purchase the price is based on the beauty, health and social position of the woman. A young girl is generally worth more than a widow or a rejected woman. Skill in female manual labor also increases the price. Among the Indians of British Columbia a wife will cost from twenty to forty pounds sterling, while in Oregon they are exchanged for bisons' skins or blankets. Among the Kaffirs from three to ten cows is a low price, twenty to thirty a high price for a wife. When a wife was given gratis, her parents had a right to the children. Marriage by purchase and by exchange still exists among the lower races as it formerly ruled among civilized peoples. We still possess the rudiments. Marriage by rape or by purchase has, however, never been in general usage. Certain races in India and Africa considered it a disgrace to pay a price for a wife. From the historical point of view it is interesting to note that, in the ceremonies of marriage by purchase, a simulated and symbolical rape of the betrothed still recalls the old form of marriage by rape; also, in races where a higher form has replaced marriage by purchase, traces of the latter are still preserved in certain nuptial symbols. DECADENCE OF MARRIAGE BY PURCHASE--THE DOT The position of woman has undergone steady improvement in higher civilization by the progress of altruism. This is why culture, in India, China, Greece, Rome and Germany, etc., has gradually discredited marriage by purchase. This was at first replaced by the custom of giving wedding presents to the bride; afterward the opposite custom was introduced of the bride bringing her _dot_ to the bridegroom. A singular transition between these two systems is constituted by simulated purchase, in which the bridegroom offers presents to the bride's parents, which are afterward returned to him. Among certain savages the bride's parents return the purchase money of their daughter to the bridegroom in another form. Such restitution was often the origin of the _dot_. Among the Romans the _dot_ became the property of the husband, and from this is derived the modern custom which usually gives the husband the right to administer his wife's _dot_, which remains the property of the wife and her family. Among the Mexicans, where divorce for conjugal discord is frequent, and among certain Mahometans, division of property exists in marriage, and the wife's property is returned to her when she is separated or divorced. In Europe at the present time, especially under the influence of French customs, there is established a kind of marriage by inverse purchase (which already existed among the Greeks), in the sense that the parents of young girls obtain husbands for them by means of a large _dot_. Westermark concludes this subject with the following words: "If she does not possess special personal attractions, a young girl without a _dot_, at the present day, runs a great chance of not getting married. This state of things is quite naturally developed in a society where monogamy is legally enforced; where women are more numerous than men; where many men never marry, and where married women too often lead a life of idleness." If we add to this: "in a society where Mammon rules as absolute master," the picture will not be wanting in accuracy. NUPTIAL CUSTOMS AND CEREMONIES In primitive races where the wife is simply bought like merchandise, often after mutual agreement, nuptial ceremonies do not exist. They generally originate later from the symbols of a form of marriage since abandoned. The ceremony being concluded and the marriage recognized as legal, it is followed by feasting. Certain religious ceremonies are generally combined with marriage. The customs of our modern marriages arise from the same source. At the time of early Christianity there were no religious ceremonies and even up till the year 1563, the date of the end of the Council of Trent, religious benediction of marriage was not obligatory. Luther held that marriage should be purely civil, but legal civil marriage was only introduced among us by the French Revolution, while it had existed in remote times among the Peruvians, Nicaraguans and others. Among certain races, marriages concluded without _dot_, without ceremony, or without purchase, and even those between different castes, are often regarded as concubinage. FORMS OF MARRIAGE Leaving aside hermaphrodites, such as the snails, in which each individual has both kinds of sexual organs and plays the part of both male and female, there are among animals with separate sexes five forms of conjugal union: (1). _Temporary or perpetual monogamy_, or marriage between one individual of one sex and one of the other sex. This is the case with most birds and mammals and many races of man. (2). _Polygymy or polygamy_, or the marriage of one male with several females. This occurs in ruminants, stags, fowls, and other animals, as well as in some human beings; for example, the Islamites, negroes, American Indians, Mormons, etc. (3). _Polyandry_, or the marriage of one female with several males. This is met with chiefly in the ants, in which each female is generally fecundated successively by several males. In most of the higher animals, the jealousy of the males renders polyandry impossible. In man it is rare but exists among certain races. (4). _Marriage in groups_, or marriage between several males and several females. This singular custom is rare but exists in the Togas, a tribe of savages. I am not aware of its existence among animals. (5). _Promiscuity_, or free sexual intercourse between males and females. This occurs in many animals, especially in the lower animals in which the sexual instinct of the male is not associated with any regard for the female or the progeny. Promiscuity is still more natural when the female does not look after her young after she has laid her eggs. Nevertheless, in most animals the female limits herself to sexual intercourse before each brood, so that real promiscuity is not so frequent as would at first appear. In man, on the contrary, it attains its apogee in prostitution, which is the only absolutely complete form of promiscuity. But the result of prostitution as regards the preservation of the species, which is the proper object of all sexual union, is absolutely destructive. Polygamy or polygymy were licit among most ancient races, and is so still among most savages and among many civilized nations; but it has several varieties. In Mexico, Peru, Japan and China a man only possesses one legitimate wife, but has several concubines whose children are considered as legitimate as those of his wife. Polygamy existed legally among the Jews up to the Middle Ages. King Solomon possessed seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. In Islamite countries the Jews are still polygamous. The Koran allows them four wives and as many concubines as they please. The latter do not enjoy the protection of their father, but apart from this they have the same rights as the legitimate wives. The Hindus and Persians are polygamous. The Romans were strictly monogamous, but they also had concubines. In Christian Europe, polygamy has occasionally been allowed or tolerated: St. Augustus did not condemn it. Luther allowed Philip of Hesse to marry two wives; and after the treaty of Westphalia bigamy was allowed because of the depopulation of Germany. The mistresses of the present princes are a relic of polygamy. Jesus having said nothing concerning polygamy, Luther did not prohibit it. The Mormons have introduced it into their religion. The negro king of Loango shows us what degree polygamy may reach among princes and chiefs, for he possesses seven thousand wives, while the chiefs of the Fiji Islands are content with twenty to one hundred. Among savage races we find monogamy in the natives of the Andaman islands, among the Touaregs, the Weddas, the Iroquois, the Wyandottes, and even in some Australian tribes. With others, polygamy is only permitted to the chiefs. But most of the population are monogamous even among polygamous races, and there are very few peoples in which all the men possess several wives. In India, 95 per cent. of the Islamites are monogamous, and in Persia even 98 per cent. Polygamy is nearly everywhere a privilege of princes, chiefs, and rich men. The two following facts also show a tendency to monogamy among polygamous races: (1). One of the wives, generally the first, has prerogatives over the others. (2). In reality, the polygamous man nearly always gives sexual preference to one only, or to a few of his wives. There are, however, some polygamous races in which the husband has sexual intercourse with each of his wives according to a regular programme, taking each of them in turn for several days, weeks or months. With others, on the contrary, a number of married women remain in reality virgins, because the husband does not desire them, and they are nothing more than domestics. Among these people the husband as a rule only takes a second wife when the first has grown old, so that bigamy becomes the ordinary form of marriage. The Cingalese were polyandrous before the English conquest, and so many as seven men had one wife in common. Polyandry is especially the custom in Thibet. Among polyandrous peoples the husbands are not all on the same footing of equality, some hold an inferior position, corresponding nearly to that of concubines, another sign of the tendency to monogamy. Among the Togas marriage in groups is constituted as follows: All the brothers are husbands of the wife of the elder brother, and all the sisters of this wife are at the same time wives of their brothers-in-law. If we except prostitution, this is the only case in man which approaches promiscuity. Marriage in groups, however, is extremely restricted promiscuity. To resume, monogamy is by far the most widespread form of marriage. This is explained by the relative number of men to women. It has often been stated that the number of individuals of the two sexes is nearly the same, and this has been used as an argument in favor of monogamy. But this statement is incorrect; sometimes it is the men, but more often the women, who predominate. Among the natives of Oregon there are seven hundred men to eleven hundred and eighty-five women. Among the Punkas and other races the number of women is two or three times greater than that of the men. In Kotcha-Hamba there is only one man to five women. Among other races there are, on the contrary, more men than women, especially in Australia, Tasmania, and Hayti. In the latter island there is only one woman to five men. In Cashmere there are three men to one woman. Among the negroes, on the contrary, the women predominate, sometimes in the proportion of three to one, but more generally as three to two. In Europe, more boys than girls are born on the average, but from the age of fifteen to twenty the numbers become equal, and after twenty the women predominate. This is due to the greater mortality among men, owing to war, the greater danger of masculine occupations, and also to alcoholism. In the fifteen largest towns in Switzerland alcoholism is the direct or indirect cause of death in 10.5 per cent. of men above the age of twenty. Among savages the women often take part in war, for instance the Amazons of Dahomey. Drinking habits are also the same or absent in both sexes, which equalizes matters. When the men predominate in these people, this is often due to infanticide committed on young girls, and also to overwork of the women. With the Cingalese the natality of boys is greater than that of girls, while in Asia Minor two girls, in Arabia even four girls, are born to one boy. The Arab says, "Allah has given us more women than men; it is, therefore, clear that polygamy is a divine commandment." =Production of Sexes at Will.=--I will say a few words on the question of the causes of production of the sexes. There is no want of hypotheses, assertions, nor even of experiments on this subject; but, we are obliged to admit that up to the present we know nothing certain. No one has yet succeeded in producing experimentally in animals males or females at will. According to one theory, which has created much impression, overfeeding produces females and underfeeding males. Although this appears to be true in certain cases among some animals, it is in no way proved in a positive manner. It has also been suggested that selection produces the sex 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 sexes. 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 superstitions. 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 sexual 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 coöperate 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 nobility 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 passed 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 passes 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 passions 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 passions, 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 preëminence 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 class 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 constitute 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 hitherto 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 prostitution, 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 constituted 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 fashionable 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 constitute the principal 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, unchastity, negligence toward parents-in-law, talkativeness, desertion, ill-temper and chronic disease. In Japan the laws are similar, but in spite of this divorce is rare in China and Japan. 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 God 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 constitute 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 prostitutes, 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, sexual appetite 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 sexual 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 SEXUAL 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 constituted 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 sexes, we can easily imagine that sexual 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 sexual passions pursuing their course in one way or another. Certain abuses or exceptions had, therefore, to be tolerated, or certain complementary institutions had to be organized. However, these laws generally branded all forms of sexual 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 principal 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 sexual intercourse have always formed two principal groups: _prostitution_ 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. Prostitution is a trade in which a human being sells her body for money, while concubinage consists in more or less free sexual intercourse apart from marriage, the motive of which is simply the sexual appetite, convenience or love, although sometimes violence plays a part in it. We therefore find in extra-marital sexual 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 prostitution constitute 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 prostitute herself for money to any stranger at the temple of Venus. Solon founded houses of prostitution for the people and furnished them with slaves, "in order to protect the sanctity of marriage against the passions of youth." The Romans had also their houses of prostitution or lupanari, public or private, as well as free prostitutes. In the Middle Ages, prostitution developed especially after the Crusades. It is related that the Council of Constance attracted fifteen hundred prostitutes to this town. Prostitutes followed the armies everywhere. In India, young girls give themselves to the priests, who are the representatives of God and enjoy great honors. Under the name of Temple girls, the girls of the flower boats of China are really prostitutes. It is the same with the puzes of Java, the girls in the Japanese tea-houses, etc. In some civilized states, certain refined and intelligent prostitutes have always obtained great honors and high favors, only charging high prices, and ending by substituting for prostitution 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 analogous results. Free concubinage, in which sexual 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 prostitutes 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 shine 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 Japan, 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 title of courtesans and mistresses, we find them everywhere as the favorites of kings and nobles, as mistresses of men in high positions, and often playing the part of vampires in all classes 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. At all periods in the history of civilized races, pathology has also led to extra-conjugal sexual intercourse. Here, homosexual love in general, and love of boys or pediastry, has always played the principal part. We shall speak of this in Chapter VIII. Among the Hebrews, Persians, Etruscans, and especially the Greeks, it was held in high esteem. The Greek philosophers regarded it as based on an ideal homosexual love, and not as a vile form of prostitution. Solon, Aristides, Sophocles, Phidias, and Socrates were strongly suspected of homosexual practices, and they regarded this form of love as superior to the normal love of woman. Lesbian love, and other sexual aberrations, such as sadism, have also played a historical role, as we shall see. CONCLUSIONS Primitive human marriage was probably of short duration; when man later on became carnivorous, and had to obtain food for his children by hunting, sexual unions assumed a more constant character. It is not the class or the tribe, but the family which constituted the primitive social condition of man, a condition in which marriage was a heritage from "pithecomorphous" ancestors, _i.e._, related to monkeys. Free sexual intercourse before marriage and frequent changes in the latter were then no doubt very common, but true promiscuity has never been the rule in primitive man. Patriarchism with its disastrous consequences has been the result of the preponderance of male power. In a higher degree of civilization this preponderance has produced marriage by purchase and polygamy. The barbarous form of the latter is now decreasing. A true higher culture leads gradually to durable love based on altruism and ethics, _i.e._, a relative and free monogamy. The development of marriage in civilization has gradually increased the rights of woman, and marriage contracts tend more and more in their modern forms to stipulate for complete equality of rights for both sexes. As Westermark says: "The history of human marriage is the history of a union in which women have gradually triumphed over the passions, prejudices and egoism of men." The term reëmancipation of women is historically more correct than the simple term emancipation, for before the institution of marriage, woman was free. Invented by the stronger male when he began to reason, marriage was at first only the servitude of woman. To give her complete liberty, it must be transformed afresh from top to bottom. APPENDIX =Influence of the Race on Sexual Life.=--If I were an ethnographer I should attempt to establish whether, and in what way, racial differences affect the sexual life of man; but the question is so delicate that it would require a skilled specialist to settle it. With the exception of the pages dealing with the history of extra-conjugal intercourse, the statements in this chapter are based on the work of Westermark. The chief difficulty consists in separating, in the customs of each race, that which arises from habit and historical tradition from that which depends on more or less specific hereditary peculiarities. It is here very easy to fall into error in formulating false conclusions. A good deal has been said concerning the hot blood of warm climates, and on the whole it appears true that people who inhabit these climates have a more violent and more precocious sexual temperament than those who live in cold regions. But this is not a racial character. The Jews, who have preserved their race unaltered in all climates and under all possible conditions of existence, furnish an object lesson which is particularly appropriate to decide the question. The traits of their character are reflected in their sexual life. Their sexual appetites are generally strong and their love is distinguished by great family attachment. Their sexual life is also influenced by their mercantile spirit, and we find them everywhere connected with the traffic of women and prostitution. They are not very jealous and are much addicted to concubinage, at the same time remaining affectionate to their wife and family. The Mongols also lead a very intense sexual life. Among the polyandrous people of Thibet jealousy appears to be completely absent: this may be the result of custom or may be due to phylogenetic instinct. The Mormons, who are descended from monogamous races, confirm the idea that polygamy is not a specific racial character. It would be interesting to study the mixed races of North America from this point of view. At first sight, it seems that the Americanization of customs in the mixture of races of the United States is also extended to sexual life, and that we cannot discover the fundamental differences between the Irish, Scandinavians, French, Germans and Italians who constitute this mixture. But it is possible that this is only a superficial impression, and that a deeper study of the details would lead to another result. One thing appears to be unquestionable in the negro race; that is the violence of its sexual passion combined with its mental inferiority. A striking trait is furnished by the French race which has remained pure in the eastern provinces of Canada, whose sexual customs are very different from those of the present population of France. The French Canadian is extremely pure and chaste, leads a regular life and has a numerous family. Families of fifteen or twenty are not rare among French Canadians. We can here, therefore, observe the effect of climate and custom on a single race. For reasons mentioned above, I shall content myself with a few remarks, but I am certain that a profound study of the question would discover, in the character of the individuals, specific peculiarities of their race which are only marked externally by customs. It is obvious that such characters will be all the more distinct, the more the race differs from its congeners, and the purer its ethnical separation. As among animals, it is necessary to distinguish between slight variations, and races or sub-species which are more constant and more divergent. Hereditary or phylogenetic individual differences must also be distinguished from those of races or varieties. =Weight of the Brain in Different Races and Sexes.=--Bebel has stated that among savages the difference between the brain of the men and women is less than among civilized people. This statement is quite wrong. Prof. Rudolph Martin, of Zurich, has given me statistics of the cranial capacity of the two sexes in different races, drawn from reliable sources. According to Martin the weight of the brain represents about 87 per cent. of the cranial capacity. His table of statistics is given on the opposite page. These figures show that the difference between the two sexes is always about the same, while the average absolute weight of the brain in the two sexes is lower in the lower races. Reckoning it 87 per cent. of the cranial capacity, it is in the Weddas 1111 grammes for males and 991 grammes for females, which corresponds to the weight of the brains of idiots or general paralytics with us. Martin assures me that in the Malay peninsula he has found as much difference between the men and women as in Europeans. According to Martin, men living at the present day may be divided into three classes according to their cranial capacity: MEN. WOMEN. Aristencephalous (large brains) over 1450 gr. over 1300 gr. Euencephalous (medium brains) 1300 to 1450. 1150 to 1300. Oligencephalous (small brains) under 1300. under 1150. AVERAGE CRANIAL CAPACITY IN DIFFERENT RACES Men Women Difference {Badois { 48 Craniums m. } 1513 1330 183 { { 26 " f. } Civilized { {Bavarian {100 " m. } 1503 1335 168 (11.2 %) { {100 " f. } {Malay { 26 " m. } 1414 1223 191 { { 2 " f. } Semi-Civilized { {Aino { 87 " m. } 1462 1308 154 { { 64 " f. } Lowest Race { 22 " m. } 1277 1139 138 (10.8%) Weddas { 10 " m. }