PART IV.

Suggestions for the Improvement of Popular Marriage, etc.

OPENING CHAPTER

INTRODUCTION.

OTWITHSTANDING monogamic, or what is sometimes erroneously denominated Christian marriage, is open to just criticism, as exhibited in Part III., it would

be a much better institution than it now is, if religionists would cordially unite with Christian physiologists for its improvement. I know that monogamic marriage, according to its strict definition, means indissoluble marriage. But indissoluble marriage has never practically obtained foothold on this planet, unless it was in the times of the founders of Rome, and this supposition entertained by a few writers, I am disposed to discredit for reasons already given; nor is it best that monogamy in its strictest sense should ever prevail. It is contrary to nature that it should, and the naturalists, I think, might

search the forests and waters of the earth in vain for any tribes or species of animals that rigidly maintain any such rule in their sexual relations, and there are plain physiological reasons why the human family

should not. Still we are in the habit of calling our system of marriage monogamic, and I will conform to the custom. Nothing can be more erroneous than to call it Christian, as Jesus was not the founder of any marriage system. It would be well for the reader before perusing this part to read Part III, and especially the chapter headed "History of Marriage," in order that any prejudices in favor of our present system, growing out of its supposed Divine origin may be dispelled; otherwise the right to sug gest any thing for its improvement may be justly questioned, for certainly it would be little less than biasphemy, for us poor finite mortals to presume to improve on any of the works of Deity. If indeed our Creator or our Saviour was the founder of any particular form of marriage it is our duty to ransack both sacred and profane history to find it, and having found it, we should take it just as it was given to us without alteration or amendment. The results of the author's researches are such as are given in the "History of Marriage," and in the chapter headed "The Defects of Marriage," and having been led by these to believe that it is a human institution, he deems it to be the duty of all good and all wise men, to co-operate in effecting such amendments as will best conduce to the general welfare. Every medical writer, especially, who does not put forth effort in this direction, is guilty of an omission which reflects discredit upon his faithfulness as a physician, when it is considered for a moment how greatly marriage effects for good or evil, the happiness, health, and longevity of every individual who enters it. In this branch of our investigation, too, all who are desirous of upholding something approaching the monogamic system should feel particularly interested. If it be believed by any con siderable number of Christian men and women that our prevailing mar. riage is the only true one, such persons more than all others, should join hands with the parson and doctor to perfect and popularize it, to the end that polygamy, complex marriage, and all other systems may enjoy but a brief existence. No progress can be made by opposing other systems, for in all violent opposition to them, the same as in religious persecution, "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church." Mormon polygamy and the results of individual and national opposition to it is a striking illustration. Driven from Nauvoo with the rifle and club of the mob, they have become as strong as a young nation on the shores of Salt Lake. The Communists were driven out of Putney, Vermont, to grow rich, strong, and respectable on the banks of Oneida Creek in New York. It is plain, therefore, that the true policy of the upholders of monogamy, is to concentrate their wisdom and strength upon perfecting their system, and making it if possible so attrac tive, that it will be forever the voluntary choice of the mass of intelligent mankind. There is nothing more glaringly palpable than the fact that there is an enormous defect in the present system of marriage, the remedying of

" from

which has been sadly neglected in the physiological "dark ages which the civilized world, I trust, is gradually, if slowly, emerging. Says Mrs. Jameson in her "Winter Studies and Summer Rambles in Canada:"

"In conversing with a prelate and the missionaries on the spiritual and moral condition of his diocese, and these newly-settled regions in general, I learned many things which interested me much; and there was one thing discussed which especially surprised me. It was said that two. thirds of the misery which came under the immed ate notice of a popular clergyman, and to which he was called to minister, arose from the infelicity of the conjugal relations there was no question here of open immorality and discord, but simply of infelicity and unfitness. The same thing has been brought before me in every country, every society, in which I have been a sojourner and an observer; but I did not look to find it so broadly placed before me here in America, where the state of morals, as regards the two sexes, is comparatively pure; where the marriages are early, where conditions are equal, where the means of subsistence are abundant, where the women are much petted and considered by the men.' By this we see, that matrimonial unhappiness is so almost universal as not to escape the notice of clergymen, whose profession affords less facilities for ascertaining the true conjugal condition of all classes of people, religious and irreligious, than that of the physician. Since the first publication of my book, in which the quotation from Mrs. Jameson appeared, a great many clergymen have spoken with me in reference to this same matter, and have given precisely the same testimony, but it is not necessary in this place to adduce facts and arguments, to prove that the world is full of connubial infelicity. There is no monogamic community in which there does not exist indubitable evidence of it. What we want is a remedy.

Many bold spirits who have tasted the bitterest dregs of matrimonial infelicity, are ready, nay, restlessly impatient, to overthrow entirely all institutions of marriage, inaugurate a system of free and promiscuous love, leaving the sexes without legal or social restraint, and to the dictates of their own individual impulses in the gratification of their amative desires and the perpetuation of the race. Others are as zealously advocating lenient divorce laws; so lenient indeed, as to allow men and women to marry and divorce at pleasure, without any outside meddling, until a congenial companionship can be formed, and then again to change this companionship whenever it becomes disagreeable, whether the causes be natural and potent or absolutely frivolous.

Such a system might better be called Digamy than Monogamy, and even if expedient (which, in the present condition of popular morals, is not probable), could not receive the sanction of this semi-conservative age. Others, still, there are, who, while they deplore the wide-spread wretched

ness existing in matrimonial life, and perhaps experience its bitterness in a slight or great degree, occupy neutral ground, feeling an indefinable reverence for the present system, and still ready to adopt any new one which may be suggested, compatible with religion and social good order. And there is yet another class, more fortunate than the rest, who have accidentally formed a happy matrimonial alliance, or something approaching thereto, presently at least promising to be permanent, a majority of whom advocate rigid divorce laws, and egotistically imagine that all the matrimonial unhappiness in the world is only the result of stupidity or recklessness on the part of those entering into the contract of marriage. They consider parties to such alliances deserving of all the misery they have brought upon themselves, and selfishly fold their conservative arms, only to move them in defence of existing laws or the enactment of still stricter ones. Such men, however well versed in law and theology, are seldom physiologists, and are unwilling to open their eyes upon the disastrous effects which unhappy marriages are entailing upon the human race, by producing progeny, and progeny's progeny, sour in temper, unbalanced in mind, and sickly in body. They are surprised at the increase of crime, and the decrease of physical vigor among our young people, and sagely attribute the causes to all others than the real ones. The thought never strikes them that if marriage could only be properly regulated, we might hope, after a season, to rid the country of rogues by the prison, and that, so long as such incongruous unions take place between the sexes, we shall ever have need of iron bars and prison walls.

This Part, therefore, will be mainly devoted to the improvement of our present system of marriage, with occasional chapters of matter appertaining to society as it presently exists. If any thing is encountered by the reader seemingly in conflict with the suggestions and opinions given in Part III., let it be remembered that in this portion of my work I am advising and recommending means for improving the system of marriage and society presently prevailing in Christendom, without alarming the conservative mind by proposing any very strikingly radical changes. Some of the proposed changes may appear novel at first glance, but on reflection they must commend themselves to the judgment of all intelligent people. After listening to these preliminary whispers, the reader is allowed to ramble through the remaining pages presented in this Part.

CHAPTER II.

ADAPTATION IN MARRIAGE.

NE of the most important matters in forming a matrimonial alliance, is to secure at the outset, at least, entire adaptation, both mental and physical. Many reformers run wild on what they term "Platonic

love," and advocate Platonic marriages, or such as are founded entirely on elevated mental affinity. Not a few philosophers, in all ages, have taken the opposite extreme, and ignored the influence of all affection between the sexes, excepting that of a passional nature. Neither of these extremes can, in the light of physiology, be regarded as right. In marriage, there should always be a nice and equal adjustment of the Platonic and passional elements in the affections, which attract and bind the pair together. Friendship is one thing; true love another. These two sentiments should be so blended in marriage as to make what might be called a compound sentiment.

Observation teaches us that truly happy marriages cannot exist when only Platonic love unites the sexes. Almost every community exhibits some marriages based on "Platonic love," but neither their offspring, nor their constancy, indicate that oneness of soul, which characterizes those unions in which both physical and mental adaptation have been realized. Then, on the other hand, it is degrading to the human being, created in the image of God, and endowed with an immortal spark of Divinity, to claim that love is but the exclusive offspring of passion, and that man and woman should marry or cohabit under the single influence of that feeling which prompts the brute creation to mate and perpetuate its species. Human beings are animals, and possess many inclinations in common with those of a lower type. Necessity for food and a desire for sexual pleasure, are shared by all animals, no less by man than by those over which the "Lords of Creation" rule. But human beings are distinguished from the lower order of animals, by intellectual and superior social endowments, consequently, mental and social fitness should be considered as well as physical adaptation, in the sexual relations of men and women. Not. however, by any