The marriage of near kin: considered with respect to the laws of nations, the results of experience, and the teachings of biology

Front matter

NLoSf^ by HAMILTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

• i

THE

Introduction

PAGE

The importance of the marriage laws — They should be secure and easy — Fallacy of " Free-love " — The prohibitions on marriage — Alleged evil results of consanguineous marriage— Importance of distinct premises — Plan of this work 1—8

CHAPTEE I.

The Degrees within which Marriage was Prohibited among Ancient Civilizations which have influenced otjr Law; and the Prohibited Degrees resulting from them in the various modern Civilizations.

Marriage in Egypt — Incest of the Ptolemies — Persian marriage— Tribes of lesser importance — Marriage in ancient Greece — Marriage among the Jews — The curse of sterility — Disregard of the Jewish law by the Herods — The Eoman family — The history of the Eoman prohibited degrees — Influence of Christianity on marriage — The prohibited degrees under the Popes — The Greek Church — Eussian marriage prohibitions — The Swedish — The Danish — The ancient Icelanders — The history of the marriage prohibitions in England — Marriage with a deceased wife's sister valid by English law — The ancient Germans — The prohibited degrees in Prussia — The Ehenish Provinces — In Wurtemburg— In Hanover — In Holland — In France — In Italy — In Spain and in Portugal— In the United States of America . . . 9 — 59

Vlll CONTENTS.

Chapter II

The Influence of Asceticism on the Prohibitions of Marriage.

PAGK

The reaction of asceticism on immorality, and immorality on asceticism — Egyptian ascetics — Jewish ascetics — Moral extremes outside the pale of the Catholic Church — Moral extremes in the orthodox Church — The prohibitions made stricter afterwards for the sake of money and power — Mischievous consequences of the wideness of the prohibitions — Spiritual relationship 60 — 84

Chapter III

There is no Innate Horror of Marriage between Near Kin implanted in Mankind ; the Origin of the Prohibited Degrees among Savages ; and the only Natural Prohibited Degrees.

To discover a natural prohibited degree it is necessary to investigate the prohibited degrees of all races — The Arabs and Mahommedans generally — The Druses — The Circassians— The Armenians — The Georgians — The Ossetes —The Mingrelese— The Parsees— The Affghans— The Beloochese— The Hindoos— The Khonds— The Sodah— The Twana— The Ho— The Koch— The Bodo— The Dhumal — The Garrow — The Munipurees — The Warali — The Magar— The Moondah— The Oraon— The Toda— The Yerkala — The Doingnak — The Singhalese — The Siamese — The Chinese — Chinese Turkestan — The Thibetians — The Mongol— The Mantchu— The Tunguz— The Jakut— The Ostyak— The Samoyed— The Kalmuck— The Kirghiz — The Nogai — The Lapps — The Malays— The Benkulen — The Palembang — The Lampong — The Batta — The Kalang —The People of Bali— The Dyaks— The Formosans— The People of Wajo — The Caroline Islanders — The Ladronese

CONTENTS. IX

PAGII

— The Polynesians — The Marshall Islanders — The Sandwich Islanders — The New Zealanders — The Australians — The Tasmanians — The Papuans — The Eskimo — The North American Indians — The Ancient and Modern Mexicans — The People of Yucatan — The Darien Indians — The Indians of New Granada — The Macusi — The Warrou— The Arrowak — The Yamanos — The Ancient and Modern Peruvians —The Mandrucu — The Coroados — The Tupi — The Abipones — The Guarani — The Charruas — The Yuracares — The Apachalites — The Caraibs — The Canary- Islanders — The Ashantees — The Fantis — The People of Dahomey — The Papels — The Bambarra — The People of Cape Palmas — The Jolof — The People of Aquapim — The Kaffirs— The Zulu— The Hottentots— The Akombwi— The Bogo— The Somali— The People of Uganda— The Galla— The Helebi, Ghagar, and Nuri Gypsies — The Ghawazee — The Moors — The Tuarik — The Hovas — Incompleteness of works on travel — History of marriage — Exogamy caused by female infanticide — Endogamy the result of pride of race — Exogamy never really prohibits marriage between near kin — Mr. Tylor's theory of the origin of the prohibited degrees — There is no innate horror of incest — Deductions from the habits of animals — Deductions from fact and fiction — History of the reasons given for the prohibited degrees — The only natural prohibition . . 85 — 157

Chapter IV

Observations on some Isolated Communities who have continually intermarried among themselves.

The mutineers of the "Bounty" — A community in Java — The family of Souza — Isolated communities in England — In Scotland— St. Kilda — In Iceland — Westmannoe — The Faroe Islanders — In Ireland — The Scillys — In France — The Pyrenees — The Cagots — The Vaqueros — The Chuetas — The Azore Islanders — The Petits Blancs of Reunion — Flinder's Isle— The Samaritans— The Jews . . . 158 — 205

Contents

CHAPTEE V.

The Value of Statistics hitherto Collected, concekning Marriage between Near Kin, Examined.

PAGE

Conclusion

Recapitulation — The value of the census — The fear that an inquiry on the subject of consanguineous marriage would be "inquisitorial" — Which degrees should be prohibited and which permitted — General results of this inquiry . 353 — 359

Appendix

Cases of consanguineous marriage, and statistical inquiries . i.— xlii.

ERRATA.

Page 26, note 5, for "Stern," read "Sterne." ,, 59, line 10 from top, for " Vaquiros," read " Vaqueros." ,, 110, line 2 from top, for " Gomora," read " Santa Cruz." ,, 213, note 2; p. 214, note 1 ; p. 215, note 1 ; p. 216, note 1 ; p. 217, note ; p. 219, note 3;

for " cretinism," read " cretinisme." ,, 223, line 3 from top, for " Salpetriere," read " Salpetriere." „ 243, line 5 from bottom, for "16," read "17;" and line 4 from bottom, for " 5"3,"

THE MARRIAGE OF NEAR KIN.

INTRODUCTION.

LIKE the rest of our legislation, the law of marriage is a fortuitous agglomeration of Acts and Judgments, about which we trouble ourselves extremely little. And yet perhaps it is the most important of all our laws. On it depends the law of inheritance, by which all property is governed, and over which many nations have been divided among themselves ; and what is more important still, on it depends their morality, and with their morality their strength as a nation. For if a man is not bound to cleave to one wife he certainly will not trouble himself to educate his children, or for their welfare pinch and save ; wherefore', instead of servants they would grow up enemies to the State, a miserable, ignorant, and incapable set of beings, who could conduct their country nowhere but to its ruin. Indeed, without marriage there would be no State, and no people to govern. It is a fallacy, as every sensible man knows, to think that it is sufficient that infants should be born, and that it is the duty of the State to see that they are

B

X THE MARRIAGE OF NEAR KIN.

properly brought up. The experience of foundlinghospitals amply shows that this is not an economical method; compulsory attendance at Government schools would also, as a monopoly, fail, as monopolies do ; and, lastly, but by no means of least importance, is the fact that such a system is contrary to human nature, and therefore could not succeed. But granting for the moment that we could do without the marriage tie, and the State could take care of the infants, it is more than doubtful whether the population would not actually dwindle to nothing. People would not care to have children, and they certainly would have but few children whether they cared to or not ; and yet it is a vital necessity not only that the population should be as much as the State can support, but that it should be more. For in a population which remains stationary every one may find employment ; while in a population which increases in excess of its means of support a certain proportion must either emigrate or die. In the first case, therefore, the clever and stupid are equally employed, the weak as well as the strong ; in the second case, the State selects the strongest and cleverest, while the weak and the stupid die out, or emigrate. There can be no doubt that of two countries, one of which had a stationary population, and the other an increasing population, which would ultimately overcome the other, or which would exist the longest, enjoy the greatest amount of happiness, and progress the fastest. Since, then, the marriage tie is of such supreme importance, all things tending to make it insecure or difficult should be got rid of at once. Marriage should not be taxed as it now is, the contract should be clear and easily proved, and no impediment should be thrown in the way of a marriage which is not likely to produce unhealthy offspring ; since every impediment directly tends to produce immorality, and immorality is directly and fatally injurious to the community.

The first condition is easily secured, because it only requires a little mechanical arrangement ; but how are we to know whether a given couple should be allowed to marry or not ? Were either insane we should not allow it, because we know that the chances are the progeny would also be insane. If a parent of either had become insane after marriage then we should not prohibit it, because, though there would be a good chance that insanity was become hereditary in the family, yet there would also be a good chance that the children might escape any hereditary taint, and the risk of prohibition would therefore be too great, we could not, for the sake of possible good, drive to a positive evil. For the same reason, or possibly from motives of humanity, we do not dissolve a sterile marriage as so many nations have done, and still do. The benefit in a great and fertile population would be very doubtful ; the evil most assured. And yet we prohibit marriages between near kin. Is then the immorality caused by certain of these prohibitions nothing ; and is the gain so very great?

The sole reason why we now prohibit these marriages, is that our fathers did so, and their fathers did so before them. Yet our fathers permitted marriage between cretins, lepers, and between many other persons, in cases where we should now prohibit it.

b 2

Why, then, should they have prohibited marriage between near kin ? Did they observe that the progeny were diseased in any way, as we observe that the children of the insane were insane ? This they certainly did not ; for we ourselves cannot show it to be the case, even with the aid of what statistics we have got ; nor do they give that as a reason in their writings. It is not easy to find out the real cause. All we know is, that these prohibitions have constantly been questioned, that they have been made more severe by law-givers, and less severe, again, by powerful individuals, or by the steady weight of public opinion. But public opinion means public practice ; and public practice, when it is against the law, tends to bring both that law and other, even beneficial, laws into contempt. When the Popes prohibited marriage within very wide degrees, the people only made use of these prohibitions, either to live immorally, or to get rid of their wives or husbands, as the case might be. Nothing is more evident than that it is useless to prohibit marriage beyond certain degrees. Marriages may be prevented in some measure, but immorality, the consequence, cannot be; the remedy is worse than the evil. It is true that marriages between near kin have been accused in modern times of producing all those diseases of the nervous system and malformations, which we in our ignorance cannot as yet satisfactorily account for. But they are not prohibited in wider degrees, simply because none of these assertions can be proved. We should, in our endeavours to prevent idiocy and deaf-mutism, madness, and malformations, greatly increase immorality and contempt of the law, and probably increase those very diseases ; because immorality does produce them indirectly, as we shall see. At the same time we should be doing nothing but a gigantic experiment ; and even if we succeeded in stopping these marriages we should not get rid of the diseases ; because, even supposing for the moment that these marriages are a cause at all, no one supposes them to produce more than a fraction of the insane or malformed.

Since the question of the alleged harmfulness of marriages between near kin is the object of this work, it will be useless to argue it any further at this point. It is essential, however, that in a question of this kind, as indeed in any, the premises should be perfectly clear, or the argument will be worthless ; and this question has had its full share of indistinct statement and irrelevant answer. The consequence is, that there is a widely spread uncomfortable feeling that consanguineous marriages are to be avoided if possible ; but if Angelina insists on having Edwin, and Edwin is fortunate enough to make Angelina persist in her intention — why then, let them marry, and may they be happy !

We will therefore put the following questions before ourselves : —

I. Whether consanguineous marriages are themselves, by the mere fact of consanguinity, and irrespective of any inheritance, injurious to the offspring. Whether, in a marriage between two relatives who are both perfectly healthy, live under healthy conditions, and whose families are perfectly healthy, the children born will probably be unhealthy ?

II. Whether consanguineous marriages give a greater proportion of unhealthy children than non-consanguineous marriages ; or, in other words, whether it is a fact that consanguineous marriages through intensification of a previously dormant hereditary family taint, give a greater proportion of unhealthy children ?

The first is a question of creation. The second a question of inheritance. Hence we may safely apply experiment on the organic world to the former, and the result, when no harm is done, will be favourable to the harmlessness of these marriages ; but, if there are any evil results, we cannot say they were created by the consanguinity, since we cannot know but what inheritance has come into play. Hence, for the first question, the only method of investigation is a negative one. For the second question, the only method is a statistical inquiry, so contrived as to include the whole population of a large country ; that is, so contrived as to overpower, as far as possible, disturbing causes.

This last method is so obvious that we cannot but feel surprised that it has never been tried yet. These marriages have been accused of causing sterility, malformations, the diseases of the mind and of the senses; of rickets, albinoism, phthisis, and cretinism ; and even of the production of hydatis ! * Surely this was enough to attract the attention of the most callous Government— surely such a question as this would enter into the census !

1 This last extraordinary statement was made by M. Aube in 1857, and therefore ninety years after the researches of Pallas, seventy-five years after their confirmation by Goeze, and thirty-six after Bremser ! It is nevertheless gravely quoted by MM. Devay (Du Danger des Mar. Cons., p. 52) and Chipault (Etude sur les Mar. Cons., p. 103) without a word of comment.

The fact is that the common sense of the world rejected these theories. They had married cousins for generations time out of memory. They had rebelled when these marriages were forbidden, and only acquiesced in the law when forced on them by the whole weight of a powerful priestocracy, under condition that it should exist but as a tax. In these times, however, this inheritance of the Middle Ages has been revived, a spectre clothed in the garb of modern philosophy. It is a matter for surprise, therefore, that this question should not have entered into the census, despite the carelessness of the general public ; but our surprise is changed to absolute amazement, when we find that in 1871 this method, when proposed, was rejected by Parliament. Well may Mr. Darwin say in the conclusion of his Descent of Man, " When the principles of breeding and of inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining by an easy method whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man."

We have no means, therefore, of ascertaining whether consanguineous marriages are so injurious that they ought to be prohibited, and yet it has been most positively asserted that they are. What are the grounds, what the proofs, that these authors have for their statements ? Certainly none that can be relied upon ; and yet they have contrived to excite a sort of sensation as fatal to our ease, as the nurse's bogy stories are to that of a child.

They argue deductively that, because some prohibitions are found throughout the world, from the earliest to the present times, these marriages must therefore be harmful ; and that because there are two sexes, therefore crosses must be necessary. They argue inductively that, because in a certain number of cases they have selected of consanguineous marriage, the results as regards the progeny have been unfortunate, therefore a far greater proportion of children born from consanguineous marriages are afflicted with disease than those born from non-consanguineous marriages ; and that because they find that a certain number of deaf-mutes, idiots, cretins, or what not, are derived from consanguineous marriages, therefore these diseases were caused by the consanguinity and by nothing else.

I will attempt an answer to these allegations in the following order : I hope to show that the reason many nations have prohibited these marriages is not because they have observed any evil result ; I hope to show that many communities have lived without crosses, and without any excess of disease ; that the statistical evidence we possess as yet is worse than worthless ; that as far as experiment in the animal kingdom goes, the evidence tends to confirm the harmlessness of these marriages ; that crosses are seldom beneficial, and often harmful ; and to show that there may be other reasons for the existence of two sexes besides any supposititious benefit from crosses.