ONE MAN, ONE WIFE.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 35, 10 February 1909, Page 6

ONE MAN, ONE WIFE.

I THE TEIpMPH OF MONOGAMY t" (By Dγ C. W; SIiEEBY, FJLS. Eaia.jv I * * " - . "''i■■'. ■ •: The pioneer student of marriage free 1 the standpoint t>l science was Herbert i ' Spencer, who, with great labour, estab--1 : lished the conclusion that monogamy i, > the best, and latest form of * marriage. The historical tendency uh« etitted it, however, at a time when icxa■ology was in its infancy, does not B accord with the facts. In the absenei ;■ of the great mass of evidence' which i» ' now before us, Spencer too readily m> sumed the truth of the popular notion c that- promiscuity was the primitive state, . .and taught that human marriage hat < j developed from this through" polygamy V towards the ideal of monogamy jj c NATURE'S RTJIiE IN MARBIAGIS. s The work, of Prof. Westennarck, Spen--0 cer"s chief follower in this path, hai ■ 0 j;hown, however, and later writers have ' abundantly confirmed it, that this primi. * tive promiscuity never existed. "There ' is no nation or race, or clan of man'now " extant, however primitive or barbaripj 1 that has not definite marriage, laws j f there is no society on earth, however ? rude, that does not punish tne unfaithful wife. Furthermore, polygamy, the only 6 historical rival of monogamy, is. now known to have- played a quite trivial " part in history, not, merely compared ! with monogamy, but as compared witS' .that which it was supposed to have ' piayed. Even in countries which we call. j polygamous to-day, polygamy is the relay Z tively rare exception and monogamy the . .™le." f HOW IT AFFECTS THE CHUDREIt. i It is the principle of survival-value 1 -tfhat explains the dominance of monoi c gamy at all stages of human society, i with the single exception.;of continuously ; and wholly militant societies, in which f polygamy obtained in consequence of the .- great-numerical excess 1 ot'women.rlt is i- the fate of the children, in which every. H' thing is involved, that has, .determined t the history of human, marriage; -Juri , c, thermore, we may see here an illustra- ' i ; tion of the truth that quality is ousting ■ ', c quantity, in the course of and a tha a low birth-rate represents a : more advanced stage than a 'high.' birth-iatei The 'birth-rate under polygamy.is undoubtedly high, but polygamy;does not •' make for the eurvival-value and'healtti 3 of the children, and the infant mortality 6 is gigantic. As I have said '■ "the form of marriage which doesjnot permit the babiea to.survive, they'do noi permit to survive." Monogamy has cony v peted with every other kind of sex relar tion, and has "leen selected by natural a selection because of its supreme services for race-culture. . These services I would 3 define as consisting, in the most perfect ? conceivable addition, of ■.^β' : motherhood. i EROPER VIEWS ON MARBIAGE. , a We 'have in 'marriage hot only the c greatest instrument of race-culture thai f has yet been employed—half consciously; f —-by man, but also an . instrument i, supremely lifcted,"and, indeed, , without * :. rival, for the conscious, deliberate, and i acieutific intentions oi modern eugeniat*. 0 Mr. Gal ton lhas shown"how effectiVtij; I. a<n educated public opinion can . emplojj * marriage <for the purposes-iof race-culr 1 ture, its services "to-which-have, indeed, ; led to its evolution. It has to "be added;" y that'only the formation.of -publicopsiiioi|, r can ever lead to that ideal. Thie opinion ■■-■. already exists in some degree , v one or two transmissible diseases,-Md, 1 without any adequate scientific warranty c as regards the marriage "pi: first cousinv -■ In these respects it is not without some i measure,of effectiveness,, and the fact i* lof ( the utmost promise. "Marriage,", paid !• Goethe, "is tie origin and 'the suminft - of all civilisations.' It -would be more f accurate, I'believe, to say "fiie'faniay" 1 rather than "marriage." The chadless V marriage' may be, and of ten. is, a thing' of s the utmost beauty and "value to 'the mdi* 3 viduajs concjerned, but.it is certainly- nai } tne origin of civilisation, and if it" he * its summit it is alifO' its grave. * WHY MONOGAMY WILL SURVIVE: c The eugenist support of marriage^ therefore, depends upon''a belief in- tie j family, and that form of marriage. will 9 commend -which -provides the beet a form of f-amily. From the point of viewi q of certain eugenisfcs, polygamy would he> desirable in many casee, as extending the parental opportunities of the-maa of fine physique or intellectual distinctioiu t TJw problem remains, however, as* to I, the nurture of the children so obtained, c and 'historical study returns us a very s clear answer as to the relative merits of I the polygamous family and tHe mono* 3 gamous family. It is thi3 last—some* v times specified as the ''simple; family"—' a that pre-eminently justifies itself on lie ■• score of its services to childhood, and, i, therefore,-to the race,; Its; survival, to I my mind, is a. matter of aibsolute ceri> itainty, tiecause of ite survival-value. Nei> I ther Pkuto nor Mr. Shaw, nor any kind , 1 of Oollectivifit legislation, will permanent- " ly abplieh it. ify then; ■Wβ are to accept - marriage on account of the family, and « monogamous marriage on account of the c simple family, can 'tie merits of this 1 institution be analysed in terms ptiU ■ more ancient than any of these I. 1 "MATERNALISM." s_." f I believe they can be defined in tennis of the principle which I would venture to call "Matern-alism," the principle of the permanent' and radical importance of motherhocd, amd of whatever institit- , tione afford it the greatest aid. Notwith- (. standing the assertion of Plato that I woman is in ell respects only a weaker j and inferior variety of man, we must assert that the supreme requirement of . womanhood from the racial point of view is pot intelligence, but motherlif ness. If the eugeniet has to choose b«r 'tween these two, he must take the laiteii , for 'he cannot do without it. Even if he does not regard it as an end in itself, he must recognise in it the indispensable means to the. end which he desires. .'-A' THE GREAT ESSENTIAL IN WOMEN. By all means let us have for mothers women of the highest intelligence and enterprise, but not if the price oi motherliness is to be paid for these possessions, since mobherliness ds a necessary conr diiion of their perpetuation. If it were the case that a real antagonism subsisted between maiteraolism and eugenica—« and, therefore, between monogamy, the simple family, and eugeni<M—then I be; lieve, that the whole project of race-cul-ture would be a.futile one, and that we should have to content ourselves with such race-culture as may incidentally occ-ur in the course of our present casual conduct. But in spite of the opinion, of some eugeniste, I am happy to.believe,.** : Mr; Galton belieyes, that no. sucji apr tagonigm esSsta; tha-t, on the the principles of race-culture can be applied- thToug-h any by the recogoitioii.of maternaiism; nay, more, * tiat onljr •Ehrough euch peobgnition. can fchejr flib* . jpeMfeajj be applied «« eR. -*