increase, and we have our share of fortune and title hunters.

In spite of all poetry and romantic literature, conjugal happiness needs for its continued existence not only a material economic basis, which will assure the absence of financial cares and sorrows, always apt to produce estrangement and quarrels, but also from its beginning freedom of choice on both sides, freedom from any kind of economic pressure or influence. Without this, the family can never be what it should be, a continued source of bliss and happiness.

The present form of the family sprang into existence, and became gradually the generally prevailing form, at a time when property commenced its career of mastership over man. Its transformation will certainly take place in some future time, which will mark the beginning of the mastership of man over property. This change of mastership will necessarily produce new moral conceptions, a new code of ethics. Just as the present form of the family corresponds to the moral conscience of our time, so will the future form of the family correspond to the moral conscience of a future period. What that form will be, it is impossible to foresee. We are unable to see with the eyes of future generations.

The monogamian family was born at or about a time when land ceased to be the common inheritance of gentes or tribes, and, in consequence of the institution of private property in land, the ancient communistic institutions crumbled away. Gradually and slowly the conception of individualism, brought forth by the changed economic conditions, crept into the mind of man, until it became the ruling moral idea in the economic life of civilized mankind. It became an immense

moral force with stupendous practical results. It is thought by students of sociology, at least by some, that it has nearly spent its career, that its effects are no longer beneficial, nay, that it has even become a hindrance to the further development of the human race. I believe this to be so, but will not discuss the point in this chapter. If it should be so, all our institutions, built upon the basis of individualism, will follow a change of that basis. Be that as it may, it is, at any rate, noticeable that the present form of the family, instituted for the purpose of facilitating the creation of families, fails to accomplish this purpose any longer. Changes will take place, or else the theory of evolution is altogether wrong. I care not to enter into speculation as to the direction these changes will take, but think it better to leave this to the moral conscience and the prudence and wisdom of a future generation.

What I wished to make clear is, that the family is a social institution first, and a moral institution afterwards; that its form never has been and never will be permanent; that in common with all forms in nature and society, it is subject to changes in the course of evolution. And I further wished to demonstrate that in the evolution of social forms and institutions, the mode of production of the necessaries of life, or in a broader sense, the economic structure of society, is of paramount influence; that necessity and usefulness create moral conceptions, and that the moral sense of man has the constant tendency to put itself in harmony with what is recognized as being useful and necessary for the welfare of human society and individual happiness. Social institutions no sooner show signs of a retrogression of their usefulness and of decay, than a revolution of the

moral sentiment in reference to them begins to manifest itself, and their moral value is questioned. The power of evolution is irresistible, and experience teaches us that its course in the production of forms has always been from the lower to the higher. Therefore, we may confidently expect that, whatever form the family will in some future time assume, it will stand on a higher plane than the present. It will be in perfect harmony with the future economic organization of society, as was the group family with the communism of poverty, or the patriarchal family with pastoral conditions, or as the monogamous family is with modern economic conditions, and it will be supported by moral views superior

to ours.

IV.

DIVORCE.

For the past few years newspapers and clergymen were complaining of the steady increase of divorce with more or less consternation and dismay. According to American fashion, relief was proposed through legislation, directed, not against the cause of the evil, but against the evil itself. I do not recollect of having read in any periodical, or having heard from any preacher, an intellectual discussion of the subject, going back to the sources from which the evil springs, and being based on patient and impartial investigation and study of the problem. If a physician, called to a patient, would tell him: "It is wrong to be sick. I forbid you to be sick, and if you will insist on feeling sick, I will keep you in a continuous state of suffering," he would act on the same general principles on which the virtuous and enraged editors and ministers act who recommend nothing else but more strenuous and stringent laws against divorce.

Once in a while an especially wise individual makes the startling discovery that there could be no divorces if there were no marriages, and recommends stringent and strenuous laws against reckless marriages as a sure and never failing remedy.

A quite humorous contribution, but meant in all seriousness, toward the efforts to solve the divorce problem was sometime ago furnished by the governor of Iowa, who caused the introduction of a bill in the legisla

ture of that state for the establishment of a school of matrimony. It was reported in the newspapers that unlike legislators of other states, those of Iowa were not content to sit down and guess at the trouble. They started out to investigate. The result was astonishing even to those who believed they had made a study of the problem. The difficulty, it was found, did not lie in any of the expected directions. It was the result, not of waywardness on the part of either husband or wife, or yet of an untoward loosening of the ties, but of a general incompatibility on the part of the young couples seeking marriage. A girl and a man fall in love at first sight, and without considering their adaptability to one another, and without understanding the responsibilities of marriage, rush away to the altar.

According to the newspapers it was deduced from the records of the divorce courts that young men, without the means of support, have within the past few years been hurrying into matrimony, and leading miserable lives from that time on. The number of young men was only exceeded by that of young women who, ignorant of cooking and general housework, became the wives of men not financially able to support them at

ease.

This is undoubtedly a true and correct statement. The amusing part is in the proposed remedy, in the bill which authorizes the establishment of a state school of matrimony with a state director and five thousand instructors, distributed among the numerous townships. According to the provisions of the bill it became necessary for those wishing to marry to take a prescribed course in the college of matrimony and pass a strict examination entitling them to a diploma before the neces