which does not differ materially from G. Bernard Shaw's ideal, and which, so far as known, has not contributed to the breeding of a noble, progressive, and promising race. It is true that G. Bernard Shaw is not to be taken seriously, because he does not take himself seriously. He likes to shock and I decline to be shocked. But the fact that he gives this message to the twentieth century, and the twentieth century listens to it, taken in connection with the serious conditions concerning marriage and divorce which I have already described, is not without significance.

us,

Such are some of the questions which we are to-day asking of ourselves in America concerning the family. Is the family founded on the marriage of one husband to one wife, or of one husband to many wives? If one husband to many wives, should he have them living together in one home, or should he have them in succession, each one in turn departing to make room for her successor? Is the family the social unit on which the organization of Church and State and industry depends, or is it a mere incident in a purely individualistic society? Should marriage be permanent or transient, for life or for the mutual pleasure of the parties? Does the husband owe any duties to the wife? Does the wife owe any duties to the husband? If so, what are

they? Do they owe any duties to their children, or may they leave their children to be superintended, nursed, educated, and trained vicariously for them by trained servants, by private benevolence, or by the State? These questions are asked to-day in America, not only theoretically by reformers, but practically by current social customs. On these questions the experience of the past throws some light. What has that experience to tell us?

At first the wife was the slave, or serf, of the husband. He sometimes had many wives; but polygamy was always rare even in polygamous countries, because considerations of economy prevented general indulgence in polygamy. There are few men in Turkey or in Utah who are rich enough to maintain a household with a number of wives. But whether marriage was polygamous or monogamous, the wife was the serf of the household. There was no contract of marriage, no mutual assenting, no asking, "Wilt thou?" or "Wilt thou not?" The bride was captured in war or bought with a price. Even the courtship was founded on this conception of capture, for one ordinary method of courtship was for the woman to run as fast as she could, while the man ran after her until he overtook her. Having once entered into this relationship, she

became absolutely her husband's property. He could sell her, he could give her away, he could lay any burdens upon her, impose on her any tasks, could chastise her at will. She was as much his servant as the slave whom he had bought in the market, as absolutely subject to his will as the child that had been born in his family. The marriage thus formed was largely a commercial employment. The wife was taken that she might perform drudgery and toil which the man was reluctant to perform; or she was taken that she might bring to him children, who could be sold in the market if they were daughters, or, if they were sons, used to bring by marriage other women into the household, and so increase the domestic service.

Out of this grew a new experiment. If this commercial and industrial partnership had for its end the raising of children, and these children were an asset of the State, why should not the State undertake the work? why should not the State supervise the marriage? why should not the State determine what man and what woman might marry, what children should be reared, and what children should be preserved? Plato proposed this. He suggested a community of wives and a community of children, with the added suggestion that they should be so brought

up that by no possibility should the child know its own mother. When I read Plato, I am always in doubt whether I am getting Plato or Socrates, and when I read the story of Xantippe I think possibly that the suggestion may have come from Socrates, who might well have wished that no husband should know his own wife. This theoretical suggestion of Plato was put in operation by Sparta. The industrial and economic organization which had been called the family was taken in charge by the State, was put under the supervision and control of the State, and the children were taken from father and mother into the hands of the State. In order to make sure that the State did not enter upon a disadvantageous economic enterprise, the children were brought before triers, and if the child proved to be a feeble child, not likely to do the work of the State, it was promptly put to death. This plan did not, however, work as well for the State as the reformers had hoped it would, for the reformers left out of life then, as reformers have often left out of life since, that which is the most potent force in all humanity-love. Because these Spartans had no homes, no families, no wives, no children, they soon lost their love for their country. Patriotism was throttled, and the State died. It is said of one of the great Spartan

leaders, sent on an expedition against a foreign foe, that he betrayed his country, and sold it, in order that he might marry the daughter of the prince with whom he was battling, and so get a wife that belonged to him and not to the State.

Marriage a condition of servitude, the wife a slave, her property, her person, her interests, her children, all under the absolute control of her master and her lord, became in time intolerable, and a reform was inaugurated. Marriage became a civil contract. The husband and the wife agreed to marry. And this civil contract lasted only so long as the agreement lasted. While husband and wife were satisfied, they remained husband and wife; when they ceased to be satisfied, they dissolved their bond and tried again. In the Roman Empire that plan was tried, though without the checks and limitations which we have put upon it, when to-day it has been put in practice in some of our States in the name, curiously enough, of woman's rights. On the whole, I am inclined to think that it was a reform; that a marriage which is a contract is better than a marriage which is slavery, and a marriage dissoluble by the contracting parties is better than a marriage which puts the wife, her person, her property, everything she has or holds dear, in charge of one despotic authority.