Part 55

A newspaper report states that the wife of a citizen of Buda-Pesth, during the 43 years of her married life, gave birth to 32 children. In the year 1902, a Bohemian woman gave birth to her twenty-fourth child. Stieda reports the cases of two mothers, one of whom had 21, and the other 23 children. The wife of the German Emperor, Albrecht I, and the wife of Prince Jost of Lippe-Biesterfeld, each bore 21 children.

The so-called two-children-system obtains most commonly in France.

It is true that even in France there are on an average nearly three children born per marriage; but if we take into account surviving children only we find an average per family of 2.1 children only. Similar conditions obtain in New England, and in Transylvania; and the same practice is spreading throughout the United States. Another way in which the attempt is made to keep down the population is that customary in Alsace, where, if there are several children in a family one only marries, in order to avoid a division of the family property. It cannot be denied that in France, doubtless in consequence of the two-children system, a somewhat widely diffused prosperity exists, a prosperity which is lacking in the rare districts in France, such as Brittany, in which limitation of the family is not practised. What a disastrous influence the general use of measures for the prevention of pregnancy exercises on the military power and political status of a nation has, however, in recent years been made especially manifest in the case of France. In that country, of ten million families, two million are absolutely childless, and two million have only one child each, so that two-fifths of the French families are as good as inactive in maintaining the population of the country. The injury thus done to France is shown still more clearly by a tabular comparison of the excess of births over deaths in the German and French nations, respectively, during the two decades 1874 to 1894 (from G. von Mayr’s Population Statistics).

Year. Germany. France. 1874 +13.4 +4.8 1875 13.0 2.9 1876 14.6 3.6 1877 13.6 3.9 1878 12.7 2.6 1879 13.3 2.5 1880 11.6 1.7 1881 11.5 2.9 1882 11.5 2.6 1883 11.7 2.6 1884 11.2 2.3 1885 11.3 1.4 1886 10.8 1.5 1887 12.7 1.3 1888 12.9 2.5 1889 12.7 1.2 1890 11.3 –0.3 1891 13.6 –0.5 1892 11.7 +0.1 1893 12.2 –1.2 1894 13.6 –0.4

To what an extent in all times, and among all peoples, the fertility of women was esteemed, is shown by religious writings and traditional customs which aimed at enabling a wife who had had no children by her own husband, to seek other conjugal embraces. Among the Jews, it was the duty of a man to marry his widowed and childless sister-in-law; if he were unwilling or unable to perform this duty he was compelled to take a part in a ritual termed “chaliza,” in which his foot was bared and the bereaved woman spat upon him, because he was unwilling to maintain his brother’s house. In the law book of the Hindoos of Manus, we read, “If husband and wife have no children, it is proper for them to obtain the desired offspring by a union between the wife and the husband’s brother, or some other relative;” the child obtained in this way was legally regarded as the child of the husband. Confucius wrote: “If your wife is barren, take a second wife; she must be subordinate to the first wife, for her only duty is the bearing of children.” An analogy to this ordinance is to be found in the Bible; Abraham’s barren wife Sarai says to Abraham: “Behold now, the Lord has restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abraham hearkened unto the voice of Sarai.” In the same way the barren Rachel speaks to her husband Jacob, “Behold my maid Billah, go in unto her; and she shall bear upon my knees, that I may also have children by her.”

Luther, in his treatise on marital love published in the year 1522, bases, doubtless on the above biblical precedents, the following statement regarding fertility: “If a sexually potent woman is married to an impotent man, if she is unable to take any other man openly, yet is unwilling to do anything dishonourable, she should say to her husband, “Dear husband, you cannot fulfil your duty to me, and you have deceived my young body, you have endangered my honour and my happiness, and in the eye of God our marriage is null, forgive me therefore if I form a secret union with your brother or with your nearest friend; the fruit of this union will be yours in name, thus your possessions will not fall to strangers, and you will willingly allow me to deceive you, because involuntarily you have deceived me.””

In ethnography, the term endogamy is used to denote a law or custom by which marriage is allowed only within the limits of a specified race, tribe, or caste; thus, in the Old Testament, Jews are forbidden to marry women of other races. The ethnographical term exogamy indicates the prohibition of marriage between persons who are more closely allied, as, for instance, the Mosaic prohibition of marriage within certain degrees of blood-relationship. Such exogamic prohibitions persist even in the legislation of the present day. In many ecclesiastical and national laws we find the marriage of first cousins and of uncle or aunt with niece or nephew forbidden; and even a prohibition of the marriage of a man with his deceased wife’s sister.

Hegar considers the danger of inbreeding to be very great in the human species; for whereas in the lower animals breeders employ a methodical and carefully considered selection of the best specimens, nothing of this kind occurs among human beings; and the health of modern civilized man is such that there are few families without a skeleton in the closet. “Not only in families, but also in villages, in small and large towns, even in classes, and in entire nations, certain peculiar qualities, morbid tendencies, and predispositions, are handed down from generation to generation. We have, for instance, the tendency of the Jews to nervous disorders and diabetes, that of the English to gout, that of the Germans to myopia.” Strahan has therefore employed the term “social consanguinity,” to indicate that by means of common customs, environment, occupation, and mode of nutrition, a similarity in type is produced, leading to a similar predisposition to disorders and diseases transmissible from father to son.

The dangers of inbreeding are believed by Hegar to be, under present-day conditions, so considerable that he would allow the marriage of near kin in exceptional cases only, and where the circumstances are peculiarly favourable—for instance, where both parties to the projected marriage are in excellent health, and where there is no great similarity between them in feature or mental type. Certain anomalies transmitted from remote ancestors, dependent on deeply-marked peculiarities of the germ cells, may be so developed by inbreeding as to become absolutely fixed characteristics. If the morbid manifestations can be traced back for several generations, if the bodily defects and disturbances of development (the so-called stigmata of degeneration), are well marked and numerous, if the functional disorders of the nervous system and of the sense organs are pronounced, leading to idiocy, insanity, epilepsy, congenital deafmutism, blindness, instinctive criminality,—there is in such cases little or no hope of the regeneration of the family. It dies out, because the members are sterile; because they are confined in prisons or asylums; or because the children, if any are born, are deficient in vitality, and fail to reach maturity.

According to the brief summary of the subject given by Hegar, the peculiarities of the offspring at the time of birth depend upon:

Factors which give rise to peculiarities of the germ-cells:

I. Germinal rudiments derived from the ancestors;

II. Influences acting on the germ-cells within the parent organism;

a. Owing to peculiarities of the fluids and tissues of the parental body;

b. Owing to substances which penetrate the parental body and reach the germ.

Germinal rudiments altered by the conjugation of the male and female reproductive cells:

I. On the mother’s side;

a. Owing to peculiarities of the fluids and tissues of the maternal body;

b. Owing to substances which penetrate the maternal organism and reach the fertilized ovum.

II. On the father’s side, owing to substances which adhere to the paternal reproductive cells, or are enclosed within these.

The number of consanguineous marriages at the present day is not less than 5½ to 6½ per 1,000; the fertility of these marriages appears to be identical with the fertility of ordinary marriages. Mayet has made a statistical investigation to determine the influence of consanguineous marriages in the pathogenesis of mental disease. He finds that the number of those congenitally affected with mental disorder is twice as great in the offspring of consanguineous marriages as in the offspring of crossed marriages; in the case of simple mental disorder, of paralytic dementia, and of epileptic dementia, the ratio is actually greater than two to one (the actual figures are 218, 257, 208 : 100). Thus we see that when there exists any cause of inheritable mental disorder, blood-relationship of the parents more than doubles the danger to the children. In the case of imbecility and idiocy the danger is less in this respect (the ratio is 150 : 100); the factor of inheritance plays a less prominent part than in the case of other psychoses.

It was remarkable that among the offspring of marriages of nephew and aunt, cases of mental disorder were almost entirely lacking. Among the offspring of marriages of uncle and niece, the inheritance of mental disorder was more prominent than among the children of first cousins. It is interesting to determine the influence of blood-relationship in cases in which the existence of inheritable predisposition could not be proved. In these cases, as regards simple insanity, paralytic dementia, and epileptic dementia, the number of cases among the offspring of consanguineous marriages was only one-half as compared with the offspring of crossed marriages; whereas in the case of imbecility and idiocy this ratio was reversed. In idiocy, where inheritance generally speaking plays a small part, the origination of the disease would often appear to depend directly on the blood-relationship of the parents; whilst as regards other forms of mental disorder, if there is no inheritable predisposition, blood relationship in the parents appears to be a positive advantage; where, however, a family predisposition to insanity exists the likelihood of actual insanity appearing in the offspring is notably enhanced by a consanguineous marriage.

The Restriction of Fertility and the Use of Means for the Prevention of Pregnancy.

As we have already pointed out, a restriction of the fertility of women occurs in the majority of marriages, to this extent, that the potential reproductive powers of the wife are not fully utilized. In recent times, however, the restriction of fertility, by the deliberate use of measures for the prevention of pregnancy, has become so widely diffused, that it appears unwise from the scientific standpoint simply to ignore the question, and it has become indispensable to study how the practice developed, and to consider what are its actual results. From our own point of view, it is the more necessary to do this, for the reason that the use of preventive measures has come to play an important part in the sexual life of woman, and therefore deserves the fullest attention, not merely from the standpoint of the sociologist, but in addition from the purely medical point of view.

In many divisions of the population, and even in entire nationalities, the prevention of pregnancy, not merely in illicit intercourse, but also in married life, has become so general a practice that the fertility of the nation as a whole has been profoundly modified. Thus, in France at the present day, the average number of children per marriage is less than two; and the two-children-system is almost universally practised in Transylvania and Norway, whilst it is very rapidly spreading in North America. In the principal towns of the whole of Europe, this system is largely on the increase among the upper classes of society. The marriages of the poor, partly owing to ignorance, and partly to indolence, are as yet comparatively little affected by this depopulative principle.

In the days of antiquity, many lawgivers endeavoured to set bounds to excessive fertility, and artificial abortion was methodically practised by those who wished to avoid an inconveniently large family. Even among savage peoples, we find that certain preventive measures are occasionally employed in sexual intercourse. Among civilized peoples, however, until the beginning of the nineteenth century, religious and moral ideas derived from the Bible continued to dominate the sexual life. It is well known that Old Testament law and Christian morality alike forbid any artificial restriction of human increase. “Increase and multiply” was the command given in Genesis to the first parents of the race; and the psalmist exclaims, “Happy is the man that hath his quiver full” of children.

A remarkable revolution in thought was initiated toward the beginning of the nineteenth century by the great philanthropist and powerful thinker, Thomas Robert Malthus, founder of the doctrine of the propriety of checking the increase of population, author of the work “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” London, 1798, whose Law of Population soon attracted world-wide attention. Modern civilization having greatly increased the cost of bringing up a family, while simultaneously there has been a general rise in the price of the necessaries of life, there has resulted an extraordinary diffusion of Malthusianism; in comparison with the causes just alluded to for the use of preventive measures, diseases which render renewal of pregnancy dangerous to the mother’s life have comparatively little to do with the causation of voluntary sterility.

In his “Essay on the Principle of Population,” Malthus indicates, as the cause which has hitherto hindered mankind in the pursuit of happiness, the unceasing tendency of all organic life to increase in excess of the means of subsistence. In the case of plants and of unreasoning animals, the natural process is a very simple one. Both animals and plants are impelled by a powerful instinct to reproduce their kind, and the operation of this instinct is quite undisturbed by any anxiety regarding the livelihood of their offspring. The reproductive function is thus exercised at every available opportunity, and the superfluous individuals of the next generation are destroyed by lack of space and nutriment. In the human species the restriction of population is effected by a more complex mode of operation. Man is impelled to reproduce his kind by an instinct not less powerful than that of other animals; but the gratification of this instinct is checked by reason, which makes him ask himself whether he is not about to bring into the world beings for whom he will be unable to provide the means of subsistence. If he is influenced by this consideration, the resulting restriction of population may often entail serious consequences; if, on the other hand, he gratifies his instinct, regardless of the appeal of reason, the human species will inevitably tend to increase more rapidly than the means of subsistence.