III.

THE FAMILY.

Monogamy is in present times generally prevalent in the entire civilized world. The monogamian family gradually and slowly grew out of the Syndiasmian. It is based upon exclusive cohabitation between one man and one woman, theoretically for life. According to Morgan's hypothesis, it owes its existence to the wish of establishing paternity with certainty for purposes of inheritance. As I said before, I do not fully agree with this hypothesis, although the motive of establishing fathership with certainty may have been very powerful toward maintaining monogamy after its establishment and with the continued growth of property. From my studies, I conclude that there must have been a more direct economic reason for it, although it cannot be denied that there was, probably, always a close relationship between marriage and inheritance. So, for instance, we find in the Pentateuch (Numbers, ch. 36), that the members of the tribe of Joseph objected to the marriage of the daughters of Zelaphahad out of the tribe, because, as they said: "Then shall the inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe, whereunto they are received"; and that by the decision of the Lord, they were not allowed to marry out of the tribe. objection was purely economic, a bit of sentimentality about it.

But we find that the and that there was not Those who objected did

so in their own interest, not only in that of their progeny.

At that time monogamy was not yet known, and land was held in common within the tribe. The common ownership of land secured to every member of the tribe at least a subsistence. With the establishment of private ownership in land, however, and especially after the tribal relation had ceased to be a part of the govern ment; and after the state, based upon territory and private property had been established, existence became uncertain and sometimes precarious. Every man had to look out, and establish an existence, for himself; the larger the family, the more difficult it became to support it. It seems to me that for the majority of people, a system producing only small families became a necessity after the establishment of private ownership in land. We must not forget that until late in the period of civilization, land was the only "real" property, and agriculture the principal and most general pursuit for producing the necessities of life. The establishment of the monogamous family came, in all probability, shortly after the establishment of private ownership in land. In the absence of those ties that made the members of a tribe more or less one large family and with the dissolution of the nation into a number of self-supporting individuals, I cannot imagine a form of family that would better fit a system of private ownership of land and its mode of using it, than the monogamian. The monogamian family, under such circumstances, became an economic necessity.

History leaves us in ignorance as to the time of the introduction of private ownership in land as well as of the monogamous family. The ancient Germans are the

only people among whom the monogamian family seems to have existed prior to the introduction of private ownership in land. But our knowledge of their family life is very limited, and considering that in the Syndiasmian family people lived also in single pairs, it is by no means certain that at the time of Tacitus the monogamous family was already generally established among them.

Theology may look at monogamy as a moral precept only, but theology and science see with different eyes. It is true that the moral sentiment of the modern world is strongly against bigamous or polygamous marriages, but neither the Old nor the New Testament forbids them, and the modern prevailing sentiment upon this point must, therefore, have sprung from another source than the scriptures. Moral views spring from the fitness of things, from usefulness or necessity. Usefulness, necessity and fitness, however, are relative terms and are subject to change with time and conditions. Necessarily, therefore, the moral views of mankind change correspondingly.

There never could be and there cannot be a standard of moral principles suitable to all times and conditions. Moral principles are always conservative, using the word in its strictest sense. Their function is to conserve that which is. The most tyrannical powers and the most vicious institutions have been justified on moral grounds. What sustains an existing order of things is moral, what threatens destruction to it is immoral. The ruling classes have always monopolized the dictation of moral precepts. Because of the controlling influence of economic interests over human institutions, relations which do not fit the economic structure of society offend

the moral sense of the time, although no general consciousness of that influence exists.

Existing economic conditions and moral principles must, on account of the everlasting evolution of the former, become disharmonious from time to time. Then follows a slow revolution of moral sentiment, a process of adjustment.

Economic fitness and usefulness have gradually made the moral sense of the modern world look at the monogamous family as the only one permissible in conscience.

Considering, however, the fact that all human institutions are subject to evolution, have we a right to assume that the family is an exception? I am not inclined to indulge in speculation upon this delicate subject, but I can see no reason whatever why I should believe that changes in the economic forms of society will leave the form of the family forever unaffected. One thing, however, I do not fear to say, and that is, that I am not inclined to believe that a form of the family alongside of which such a fearful institution as that of prostitution is possible, can be the highest form of the family which the human race is able to evolve.

We hear it frequently said that the family is the basis of the state. This idea is brought forth, principally, in arguments for more stringent divorce laws. However, it is not true, neither in theory nor in fact. Both, family and state rest upon entirely different principles; the organization of the state rests on territory, that of the family on personal relations. While really the relation of cause and effect does not exist at all between the two, yet if one wishes to establish some such sort of relation, then the state is rather the basis of the family. The state prescribes the forms under which families may

be legally established, the state determines the legitimacy or illegitimacy of offspring, and the state establishes laws of inheritance. It has the power to change the laws and precepts upon these matters without affecting its own existence and general powers. Upon the other hand, the family has not the least power over the state. In a certain sense the family is the creature of the state, in so far as the latter gives legal force to the prevailing moral sentiment, but in no sense whatever is it the basis of the state. The theory is probably an inheritance from the times when the family was considered an institution necessary for the production of soldiers for the king, and the raising of many children, especially boys, an act of patriotism. It is not the habit of modern mothers to display that kind of patriotism.

I either misunderstand the signs altogether, or else the economic conditions of our time have a destructive influence on the family.

I have a friend who lives in one of the large Eastern cities. He has an extensive manufacturing business, is a very careful business man and in very comfortable circumstances. He has three sons and three daughters, all unmarried with the exception of one daughter. The other two girls have, since some time, been of marriageable age. The oldest son, more than thirty years old, travels for his father's business; the second has chosen a profession, and holds a position with a salary of four thousand dollars a year. On the occasion of a visit I asked him why he did not marry. "My dear uncle," (my friend's children call me uncle), he said, "with four thousand dollars a year, I am unable to support a family." The answer was a sufficient explanation, not only why he, but also why the others, the girls included,