was an average of 165 to a marriage, whereas, during the same period, pure Jewish marriages resulted in an average of 4:41 children or very nearly three times as many. In Bavaria, between 1876 and 1880, the numbers were only 11 per marriage against 47 children to purely Jewish marriages. And this conspicuous infertility implies greater sterility. Among fifty-six such marriages, with regard to which Mr. Jacobs ascertained the results, no fewer than nine were sterile, ie, 18 per cent.,-a striking contrast to the number of sterile marriages which he found in seventy-one marriages between Jewish cousins, where the percentage of sterility was only 54 per cent.1 Mr. Jacobs, however, informs me that it has been suggested that this infertility may be due rather to the higher age at which such marriages are likely to take place. There is still a strong feeling against them among Jews, which is only likely to be overcome after independence of thought and position has been reached. At the same time Mr. Jacobs does not consider this sufficient to account for the very great discrepancy. But we must not, of course, take for granted that the crossing of any two races has the same effects as the crossing of Jewish and non-Jewish Europeans seems to have. Even if it could be proved, however, that mixture of races produces lessened fertility of first crosses and of mongrels, this would not make it necessary for us to reject the doctrine of the unity of mankind. It is true that the domesticated varieties both of animals and of plants, when crossed, are as a general rule prolific, in some cases even more so than the purely bred parent varieties; whereas species, when crossed, and their hybrid offspring, are almost invariably in some degree sterile. But this rule is not altogether without exceptions. Even Agassiz condemned the employment of fertility of union as a limiting principle. He considered this a fallacy, "or at least a petitio principii, not admissible in a philosophical discussion of what truly constitutes the characteristics of species."? Thus the red and yellow varieties of maize are in some degree infertile when crossed, and the blue- and the red-flowered 1 Jacobs, 'On the Racial Characteristics of Modern Jews,' in 'Jour. Anthr. Inst.,' vol. xv. pp. 26-28. 2 Agassiz, 'Essay on Classification,' pp. 249-252. forms of the pimpernel, considered by most botanists to be the same species, as they present no differences of form or structure, are, according to Gärtner, mutually sterile. Moreover, Mr. Darwin's investigations on dimorphic and trimorphic plants have shown that the physiological test of lessened fertility, both in first crosses and in hybrids, is no safe criterion of specific distinction. As for animals, Professor Vogt asserts that, in the opinion of experienced breeders, certain races can with difficulty be made to pair, and the fertility of the mongrels soon diminishes, whilst other races pair readily and are prolific. Sir J. Sebright says, "Although I believe the occasional intermixture of different families to be necessary, I do not, by any means, approve of mixing two distinct breeds, with the view of uniting the valuable properties of both this experiment has been frequently tried by others as well as by myself, but has, I believe, never succeeded. The first cross frequently produces a tolerable animal, but it is a breed that cannot be continued." 3 1 Darwin, ‘Animals and Plants under Domestication,' vol. ii. pp. 105, 190, 181, et seq. 3 Sebright, loc. cit. pp. 17, et seq. 2 Vogt, loc. cit. p. 421. U CHAPTER XIV PROHIBITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN KINDRED THE horror of incest is an almost universal characteristic of mankind, the cases which seem to indicate a perfect absence of this feeling being so exceedingly rare that they must be regarded merely as anomalous aberrations from a general rule. Yet the degrees of kinship within which intercourse is forbidden, are by no means everywhere the same. It is most, and almost universally, abominated between parents and children, especially mother and son. As an exception to this rule, v. Langsdorf states that, among the Kaniagmuts, not only do brothers and sisters cohabit with each other, but even parents and children.1 The Eastern Tinneh, or Chippewyans, occasionally marry their mothers, sisters, or daughters, but such alliances are not considered correct by general opinion. In the Indian Archipelago, according to Schwaner, Wilken, and Riedel, marriages between brothers and sisters, and parents and children, are permitted among certain tribes; 3 1 v. Langsdorf, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 64. 2 Ross, in 'Smithsonian Report,' 1866, p. 310. 3 Wilken, Verwantschap,' &c., p. 22. Idem, in ‘ Bijdragen,' &c., ser. v. vol. i. p. 151. Riedel, quoted by Post, Entwickelungsgeschichte des Familienrechts,' p. 221. Garcilasso de la Vega, describing the Indians of Peru before the time of the Incas, says (loc. cit. vol. i. pp. 58, et seq.), In many nations they cohabited like beasts, without any special wife, but just as chance directed. Others followed their own desires, without excepting sisters, daughters, or mothers. Others excepted their mothers, but none else.' It is said, according to Dr. Hickson (loc. cit. pp. 277, and similar unions, it is said, took place among the ancient Persians.1 Again, in Nukahiva, as we are told by Lisiansky, although near kinsfolk are forbidden to intermarry, it sometimes happens that a father lives with his daughter, and a brother with his sister; but on one occasion it was looked upon as a horrible crime when a mother cohabited with her son. Among the Kukis, as described by Rennel, marriages were generally contracted without regard to blood-relationship; only a mother might not wed her child. Among the Karens of Tenasserim, “matrimonial alliances between brother and sister, or father and daughter, are not uncommon." 4 Speaking of the King of the Warua, Mr. Cameron states that in his harem are to be found his stepmothers, aunts, sisters, nieces, cousins, as also his own daughters. Among the Wanyoro, brothers may marry their sisters, and even fathers their daughters; but a son does not marry his own mother, although the other widows of his father become his property." Unions between brothers and sisters, who are children of the same mother as well as the same father, are likewise held in general abhorrence. The primitive feeling against such connections is strongly expressed in the Finnish Kullervo Myth. The unfortunate Kullervo, after discovering that he had committed incest with his sister, wails "Woe is me, my life hard-fated ! I have slain my virgin-sister, et seq.), that in olden times, in the southern districts of Minahassa, in the neighbourhood of Tonsawang, father and daughter, mother and son, brother and sister, frequently lived together in bonds of matrimony. As regards the Chippewas, Mr. Keating states (loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 170) that incest is not unknown to them, but it is held in great abhorrence.' 1 Hübschmann, 'Ueber die persische Verwandtenheirath,' in 'Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellsch.,' vol. xliii. p. 308. 2 Lisiansky, loc. cit. p. 83. 3 Lewin, loc. cit. p. 276. + Helfer, 'The Animal Productions of the Tenasserim Provinces,' in 'Jour. As. Soc. Bengal,' vol. vii. p. 856. 5 Cameron, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 70. 6 Wilson and Felkin, loc. cit. vol. ii. p. 49. Woe to thee, my gray-haired mother! The dishonoured sister threw herself into the river, and The Californian Nishinam believe that, for the prevention of incest, at the beginning of the world, not one but two pairs were created from whom sprang all the Nishinam. When the missionary Jellinghaus once asked some Munda Kols whether animals know what is right and wrong, the answer was, "No, because they do not know mother, sister, and daughter." Yet, as we have seen, there are exceptions to the rule; and certain peoples who consider intercourse between parents and children incestuous, allow unions between brothers and sisters. Among the Kamchadales, says Krasheninnikoff, "marriage is forbidden only between father and daughter, mother and son.” 4 Not long ago, the wild Veddahs of Ceylon regarded the marriage of a man with his younger sister as not only proper and natural, but, in fact, as the proper marriage, though marriage with an elder sister or aunt would have been as incestuous and revolting to them as to us.5 Among the Annamese, according to a missionary who has lived among them for forty years, no girl who is twelve years old and has a brother is a virgin. Liebich tells us that the Gypsies allow a brother to marry his sister, though such marriages are generally avoided by them.7 Among the Wa-taïta, says Mr. Thomson, "very few of the young men are able to marry for want of the proper number of cows-a state of affairs which not unfrequently leads to marriage with sisters, though this practice is highly reprobated." Among the aborigines of Brazil, union with a sister, or a brother's daughter, is almost universally held to be infamous. Such practices are not uncommon in small isolated hordes; 1 'The Kalevala' (translated by Crawford), vol. ii. p. 548. 2 Powers, loc. cit. p. 340. 3 Jellinghaus, in 'Zeitschr. f. Ethnol,' vol. iii. p. 367. "but the 4 Krasheninnikoff, 'The History of Kamtschatka,' p. 215. Thomson, 'Through Masai Land,' p. 51. |