Chapter II: , it follows that it is the female rather than the male that (7)

This survey of primitive races is limited to the elucidation as to what is normally the position as regards the regulation of numbers. The evidence is not sufficiently detailed to allow us to judge whether in any one particular instance there was or was not a close approximation to the desirable number before contact with Europeans had changed their conditions. It is merely suggested that there was in general a tendency for such an approximation to occur and it may further be deduced that, since the desirable number remained the same over a great length of time, rendering the approximation, so to speak, easy of attainment, the adjustment to the optimum number normally came about. And in this connexion the limitation to clearly defined areas may be borne in mind. The very fact of the universal recognition and careful maintenance of these areas is an indication that such was the normal condition. Migration is abnormal, and this fact is apt to be forgotten for two reasons. First, when reviewing the course of history, migrations stand out as the chief, if not the only, known facts and the huge intervals of time between one movement and another are forgotten. Secondly, our knowledge of primitive races is largely derived from observations made when migration had been set on foot owing to contact with Europeans, as, for instance, in America. Migration may be a disturbing factor, upsetting the adjustment of numbers; but it is an abnormal condition and hence it is disregarded here.

And here, in answer to the objections that a greater prevalence of infanticide and so on is assumed than there is evidence for, we may, bearing in mind the many reasons why the evidence is deficient, reply that this assumption is not unreasonable. If such an assumption is not made, the position among these races is not comprehensible. It may be granted, for instance, that there is evidence of the practice of infanticide on a large scale among certain Australian tribes; but it may be pointed out that similar evidence is lacking in the case of other tribes. Allowing that a far more detailed examination of the evidence is desirable than there is space for here, especially with regard to the nature of the evidence and the date to which it refers, we may ask what it is supposed was going on among those tribes who did not, as it may be alleged, practise infanticide—abortion and abstention from intercourse being uncommon or unknown in Australia. The fecundity of all Australians is presumably very similar; it would be very remarkable indeed if it were not. The factors tending to lessen fertility and to produce elimination do not differ so very much from one tribe to another. It must follow that, if one tribe practised infanticide on a large scale and maintained its numbers nevertheless, another tribe which did not do so must have been rapidly increasing. This rapid increase is not compatible with the strict maintenance of well-defined territories and with all that we know of normal inter-tribal relations, and it is submitted that the assumption made here, namely that infanticide or some other custom was almost always practised, provides the only explanation of the position.[1284]

Lastly it may be recalled that there are many indications that fecundity is somewhat less among these races than among modern races. However this may be, it has always to be remembered that the power of increase is nevertheless huge. It has been, for instance, calculated that between the years 1906 and 1911 the population of the world was increasing at such a rate that it would double itself in about sixty years. At this rate of increase the estimated population of the world in 1914—namely, 1,694,000,000—would be produced by the progeny of a single pair in 1,782 years.[1285] Furthermore, this is occurring under conditions in which the increase is everywhere obviously and severely checked in very many ways; therefore, even if the fecundity among these races is less than among civilized races, it must not be thought that there is thereby brought about any considerable alleviation of the problem as to how numbers should be controlled.

13. We have now to ask how far the conclusions to which we have come regarding primitive races are applicable to prehistoric races. In the first place, they are clearly only applicable to races among whom social organization has become established; for it is only when men begin to reap the advantages of co-operation that the conception of the optimum number arises. As we have seen, it is not possible to say when primitive social organization arose. It must certainly have been present in the Upper Palaeolithic; the evidence of the presence of a large body of tradition is otherwise incomprehensible. As suggested, it may very well be that we should look for the origin of social organization in the Lower Palaeolithic. Among the Tasmanians, whose skill was not much in advance of that of Acheulean man, there was a primitive form of social organization. Nevertheless, wherever the beginnings of social organization are to be placed, we must suppose that a long period of time elapsed before it assumed that rigid form characteristic of primitive races. Giving all due weight to this consideration, we must assume that in, and perhaps before, the Upper Palaeolithic era the position with regard to numbers was in all essentials similar to that among primitive races. It is not uncommon to meet with statements to the effect that man was a wanderer until he began to practise agriculture. This is a mistake if it implies that after social organization had arisen definite areas for different groups of men were not recognized. There can be no direct proof of this; but the fact that, wherever we look, absolutely without exception we find among all primitive races the recognition and careful maintenance of such areas, just as much among hunting and fishing as among agricultural races, must lead us to suppose that among the more skilled hunters of pre-history similar conditions normally obtained. It is altogether unreasonable and without foundation to suppose that the recognition of areas is a development subsequent to the separation of primitive races from the main line of social evolution. If then the recognition of areas, which probably arose with the development of social organization, was a characteristic of the later prehistoric races, we are led to conclude that the desirability of attaining to and maintaining the optimum number must have had the same consequences as among primitive races. It must, in other words, have resulted in the practice of infanticide, of abortion, or of abstention from intercourse. For there is no reason to assume that the factors bearing upon fertility and elimination reached a considerably greater intensity than among primitive races. We have, however, no reason to assume that any one of these habits was practised rather than another, for there is, as we have seen, no correlation between these factors and stages in economic development. All that we assume is that in one way or another adjustment was brought about, and in corroboration of this we may note, as will be pointed out in the next chapter, that as prehistoric races emerge into the light of history there is abundant evidence of the practice by them of one or other of these customs.

14. Lastly we may ask how we are to view the change from the conditions under which the pre-human ancestor must have lived to the conditions which we have found reason to attribute to prehistoric races. The conditions to which species in a state of nature are subjected, and to which therefore we assume the pre-human ancestor to have been subject, were described in the second chapter. We found that the fecundity of any species was connected with the sum of all the unavoidable dangers as we called them to which the young of the species are exposed. A limit is set to the development of the strength of fecundity beyond a certain point by the fact that it cannot be to the advantage of any species that its “fecundity should increase considerably beyond the point which ensures the survival of the species, as such an increase would intensify the struggle between the members of the species—this intensification of the struggle not bringing any corresponding advantages.”

We are ignorant with regard not only to the form of the pre-human ancestor, but also with regard to the conditions under which he lived. We must suppose, however, that his fecundity, like that of any other species in a state of nature, was of a strength that enabled a sufficient proportion of his offspring to survive the unavoidable dangers. As we have seen, that which marks the setting out of man on the path which led to the dominion over all other species was the growth of his intellect. The most obvious consequence of this increase in intellectual power must have been to enable man to protect himself against many of these dangers. We do not know to what dangers he was subject, but they must in all probability have been many and serious in view of his relatively poor equipment with means of defence. Yet we have only to look at the Tasmanians to find that, when a degree of skill had been reached not far superior to that of Lower Palaeolithic man, he had freed himself from most of these dangers. Parasites were not then, so far as we can tell, a serious menace, and against the attacks of other species he could defend himself with almost complete success. Whether his fecundity had come to differ from that of the pre-human ancestor by that time we cannot tell; in any case the fecundity of prehistoric man was evidently in the main a legacy of the pre-human ancestor—a degree of fecundity that had been evolved in the face of quite other conditions. Since the time of prehistoric man fecundity has increased—this increase being apparently in the main in the nature of a modification due to changed conditions of life.

It appears that we must regard the growth of intellect as having enabled man to avoid the serious consequences which a fecundity in excess of that necessary to ensure survival would otherwise have brought about. Excessive fecundity, not therefore being a disadvantage, was not reduced by selection. It must be remembered that human fecundity is only relatively excessive; actually man is a slow-breeding animal, and when we speak of this relatively excessive fecundity, we are not to think of such a degree of fecundity as would occupy so prominent a place among the bodily functions as to render man less adaptive than he would have been had it been less. Fecundity, in other words, could only have become disadvantageous had it led to greatly increased competition among the members of the species without any corresponding advantage. This might perhaps have happened, had not the growth of the intellect indirectly produced new causes of elimination and intensified some of the formerly existing factors. Thus the change in food and in the mode of life was evidently productive of a higher infant mortality; such changes were due to the growth of the intellect, and the higher mortality consequent upon them, if not, as is possible, an actual advantage, was at least countenanced by natural selection.[1286] Such changes therefore were, other things being equal, tolerated, as were also abstention from intercourse due to taboos, pre-puberty intercourse, prolonged lactation, and so on. The practices of abortion and infanticide together with prolonged abstention from intercourse—also due to the intellect—enabled man completely to escape any disadvantages which might have arisen from his relatively excessive fecundity—the reserve, so to speak, of fecundity being possibly an advantage.

In some such manner as this it seems that we have to regard the present position of man with reference to fecundity. The strength of fecundity is in the main a legacy from ancestors who were subject to wholly different conditions. It is excessive relatively to his present needs; this excess has, however, not been a disadvantage; for the consequences which might have been deleterious have been avoided owing indirectly to the modifications of the conditions of life and directly to the rise of certain customs all ultimately traceable to the growth of the intellect.

X
HISTORICAL RACES

1. In this chapter we deal with the factors bearing upon fertility and elimination in the third of the three groups described in Chapter V. In one important respect this and the following chapter are contrasted with the preceding chapters. In the latter we were dealing, not with the facts derived from the peoples whom it was our object directly to investigate, but with the facts derived from primitive races with the object of throwing light upon prehistoric races. Here we are dealing with the facts relating to the peoples whose position it is our object to consider. The setting out of the facts relating to these races presents great difficulties. The amount of information is huge, but for the most part it is far from being of a satisfactory nature, and the rapid changes which have occurred within the historical period increase the difficulties. Only a brief review of the subject, designed to illustrate the more important features, is attempted.

The races under consideration are divided into four sub-groups. Sub-group 1 includes the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome up to the fall of the Western Empire. In these countries we have some knowledge of the progress from Neolithic culture to a culture exhibiting a far greater command over nature. From this culture is derived the later civilization of Europe, which we consider under sub-groups 3 and 4—the former beginning with Europe after the fall of the Western Empire and ending roughly about A. D. 1760, the date given by Marshall as marking the beginning of the industrial system, the latter beginning about 1760, and including all European races and their derivatives in America, Australia, and so on. Generally speaking, therefore, sub-group 1 includes the ancient empires, sub-group 3 Europe from the Roman Empire to the rise of the industrial system, and sub-group 4 the epoch of the industrial system.

There remain those races which have passed beyond the culture of the races included in the second group, but which have been out of the main stream of the evolution which led to the industrial evolution. In sub-group 2 are included India, China, Persia, Japan, and also the partly nomadic Arabs and certain other Asiatic peoples. In late years the customs of the races in this sub-group have been influenced by contact with Europeans; changes due to this contact will be disregarded, as were similar changes in the races belonging to the first and second groups.

In one very important respect the conditions with regard to all races in the third group differ from those in the preceding groups. Disease is a factor of the greatest importance, and we may consider in the first place the facts regarding the prevalence of disease in all groups. What little there is to be said regarding war, famine, and child mortality in all the races of this group may also be considered together. With regard to the other factors we find that in many respects the conditions in the first two sub-groups are similar and are contrasted with those in the latter two sub-groups. Therefore, after considering disease and the other factors mentioned for all groups taken together, it will be convenient to deal with the sub-groups separately, taking the ancient empires and the Asiatic peoples first, and mediaeval and modern Europe afterwards.

2. Something was said in Chapter VI with regard to the evolution of disease. It was there shown that in all probability most diseases evolved relatively late in history. The more settled conditions of the Neolithic Age may have provided the first suitable surroundings for the evolution and spread of disease. The taking of metals into use was followed by an increase in the density of population when conditions became yet more favourable. The use of metals was followed by the rise of the first civilizations. It was then that men first came to dwell in towns and cities, and it is interesting to observe that the earliest cities were very compact. Mr. Hall, speaking of Minoan civilization, says that the towns were very cramped, ‘more so than the most confined of European mediaeval cities’.[1287] On the rise therefore of these early civilizations the conditions were strongly contrasted with those which, we imagine, must have been prevalent before, and favoured the spread of disease as it had never been favoured before. From the rise of the early civilizations until within the last hundred years, conditions have remained favourable. They may perhaps have been most favourable in European towns in mediaeval and later times. According to Rogers, ‘the habits of the people were favourable to pestilence. Every writer during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries who makes his comment on the customs and practices of English life, adverts to the profuseness of their diet and the extraordinarily uncleanliness of their habits and persons. The floor of an ordinary Englishman’s house, as Erasmus describes it, was inconceivably filthy, in London filthier than elsewhere, for centuries after these events. The streets and open ditches of the towns were polluted and noisome beyond measure. The Englishman disdained all the conditions of health.’[1288]

Turning to the evidence, we find that facts are very scanty for the earliest times of this period. Such evidence as we have points to the prevalence of disease during the early civilizations. We know that pestilence swept over Egypt—the references to the subject in the Bible being familiar. But precisely what diseases were prevalent are not known; the descriptions of the symptoms are seldom sufficiently accurate even in mediaeval times to make it possible to identify the diseases.[1289] From other evidence it appears that in any case tuberculosis, leprosy, plague, and bilharzia were common in Egypt. There is much evidence to show that most diseases only reached Europe in relatively late times. Plague, for instance, probably first reached Europe in A. D. 542. It is possible, however, that the pestilence which ravaged most of Europe between A. D. 164 and 188 was plague.[1290] Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that many diseases came from the East, where they in all probability originated. Plague, cholera, and small-pox all seem to have had their origin in India. This conclusion is in harmony with what we know of the origin of civilization, for it is where men first came to dwell in close proximity that we should expect to find that disease originated.

With regard to mortality from disease very little accurate information is available until modern times. It is quite impossible to say, for instance, whether disease was the cause of a higher mortality in the Middle Ages than in the times of the Early Empires. All we know is that it was in both cases an important factor of elimination. Within the last century disease has come to be in an increasing degree under the control of scientific methods. Some diseases such as small-pox have been almost banished from this country; others, such as diphtheria, have been rendered less lethal. Of the Early Empires there are of course no exact facts. Macdonell, working on figures from the _Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum_ of the Berlin Academy, found that there was a very low expectation of life in ancient Rome as compared with the present day. Whereas in England at the age of fifteen the expectation of life for boys is forty-five years and for girls forty-eight years, in Rome it was twenty and fifteen years respectively; and again, whereas in England at the age of thirty the expectation of life for men is thirty-three, and for women thirty-six years, in Rome it was nineteen and fourteen respectively. He also found that, though the death-rate was less high, the position was much the same in the provinces of Hispania and Lusitania as in Rome. In Africa, however, the expectation of life was higher, but this may perhaps be due to the presence of a large number of colonists.[1291] There is abundant evidence of a high rate of mortality in Europe up to the opening of the last century. We must remember, says Rogers, that ‘in the Middle Ages the risks of death from disease were far greater than they are at present, that medical skill was almost non-existent, that the conditions of life were eminently unwholesome, that the diet of the people, during fully one-half of the year, though abundant, was insalubrious’;[1292] and in another place he says that ‘in the large towns the deaths, to judge from the return up to the eighteenth century, greatly exceeded the births’.[1293] Theilhaber, quoting Goldstein, gives figures which corroborate this view for Basel and Frankfort.[1294] Halley constructed one of the earliest tables of mortality for the city of Breslau for the years 1687 to 1691, and they show that the mortality was ‘considerably higher than that shown by modern statistics’.[1295] Price constructed a table for Northampton for the years 1735 to 1780, and it shows a death-rate of 249·31 per thousand for the ages 0–2, which is far higher than at the present day.[1296]

Finally, though disease has nowadays very largely come under scientific control, by far the greater number of deaths is due to disease. Thus in 1917 there were 498,922 deaths among the civilian population of England and Wales. Of these, 20,480 were due to violence (not suicide), 2,495 to suicide, 2,485 to ill-defined or unknown causes, and 2,598 took place during pregnancy. Of the remainder all were due to defined diseases. Enteric fever (typhoid and paratyphoid) accounted for 977, measles for 10,538; whooping cough, 4,509; tuberculosis for 59,934; syphilis for 2,127; cancer for 41,158; pneumonia for 39,832; diphtheria and croup for 4,498; meningitis for 4,761; organic heart disease for 52,692; bronchitis for 38,907; other respiratory diseases for 7,031; diarrhoea for 13,311; nephritis and Bright’s disease for 14,298; and congenital debility for 23,850.[1297]

3. Warfare is the second factor—disease being the first—which among these races is remarkable in that its effects are not regular. It is wholly impossible to estimate the loss of life in war until modern times. Contemporary statements nearly always hugely exaggerate the numbers engaged in battle and the number slain. ‘In the first Battle of St. Albans we have been told that five thousand persons were slain. It is almost certain that not much more than half that number were in action.’[1298] This is probably equally true of nearly all such statements. With regard to elimination through warfare there are two facts to be borne in mind. The first is that, even if the contemporary statements were correct, war is by no means so important a factor as it seems at first sight. A practice which resulted in the conscious limitation of each family by one child would have greater results over a period of years than there is ever claimed as the direct result of warfare in reducing numbers over a similar period. The second is that the indirect elimination following upon warfare is of far greater importance than the direct elimination. Famine and disease following warfare were until recent times responsible for many more deaths than warfare itself. When we are told that during the Thirty Years’ War the population of Würtemberg was reduced from 500,000 to 46,000,[1299] it has to be remembered that disease and famine played a greater part than loss of life in battle. Further, when the direct effects of warfare as a whole are contrasted with those of disease, it is apparent that they are relatively insignificant. Elimination from disease, though irregular, is always in progress within this period; there are lengthy epochs when there is little or no loss through war. Again, the great epidemics are far more destructive of life than the great wars; Hecker, for instance, after a lengthy examination of the various accounts, came to the conclusion that about a quarter of the inhabitants of Europe perished during the Black Death.[1300]

The nature which warfare assumed in this period is obviously connected with the rise and consolidation of large states. Warfare becomes a matter of policy; it is no longer a cause of a regular degree of elimination. There is among the races under review in this chapter every degree between the kind of warfare typical of the races previously reviewed and that typical of this period. The nomadic races of Asia have at least until recent times maintained a form of regular warfare. Vambéry states that there is ‘inveterate and irreconcilable enmity’ between two tribes of Turkomans.[1301] We are told that among such a primitive people as the Nagas the tribes were formerly in a state of constant hostility.[1302] Among these people also head hunting was formerly common and the victims sometimes included women.[1303] ‘One individual showed Mr. Carnegie his apron which recorded the deaths of twenty-five individuals—men, women and children—slain by his own hand.’[1304] Generally speaking, however, we have in this period to think of warfare as typically of a different nature to that which we have noticed before, but whether it on the whole accounts directly for a higher degree of elimination, it is not possible to say.

The features of warfare which are of importance here are its relatively slight effect in producing elimination, its irregular action, and its important consequences in bringing about disease and famine. With disease we have already dealt. Famine appears here for the first time among the more important factors of elimination, and its appearance is obviously connected with the higher organization of society which, if broken down, as by warfare, may give rise to famine.[1305] Social organization may be broken down by other causes than war, as by some failure in government. Famine may also result from exceptionally bad weather in any period; but it would seem that when a certain stage of organization has been reached the danger is greater than before or afterwards. There were great famines in England in the years 1194 to 1196, 1257 to 1259, and 1315 to 1316, since when famines have been unknown. These famines were all connected with bad weather, but the fact that they have not occurred since is to be attributed rather to superior social organization and increasing knowledge than to better climatic conditions. The sudden and prolonged changes of climate which occur in certain places, as for instance in Peninsular India, tax the resources even of modern knowledge and skill. In the case of famine, more so even than in the case of warfare, the loss of life is apt to be overestimated. Famine somehow strikes the imagination and gives it a prominence in history which it does not deserve. It is in reality a minor factor.

Before leaving the subject of warfare, it is interesting to note, in view of what will be said later regarding the influence of Christian teaching in assisting to put a stop to abortion and infanticide, that the early Church was also opposed to warfare. According to Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, all warfare was unlawful for the converted. Under Domitian a Christian soldier who refused to fight was executed. There was a controversy between Celsus and Origen on this matter. The view of the latter was that the prayers of Christians were more effective than their swords. This attitude, however, was soon abandoned, and by the time of Constantine the army was largely Christian.[1306]

4. In the groups already discussed we have found child mortality to be an important factor. We traced it to certain factors such as carelessness, ignorance, and practices such as bathing new-born babies in cold water. Within the historical period child mortality also plays an important part. Though there is little or no evidence of the practice of such customs as those referred to, ignorance and carelessness are familiar enough among the less educated classes at the present day, and in addition disease exacts a very heavy toll of infant life. In fact, whereas among primitive races the actual cause of the death of children appears generally to be exposure or debility following on the results of ignorant and careless treatment, among the races of this group the actual cause of death is usually disease to which children have been more or less predisposed by the treatment they have received.

There is little exact evidence as to the conditions among the historical races, but the general impression gained from the literary evidence is that infant mortality was high. The high rate of child mortality among Asiatic races is well known. In the period 1902 to 1911 the average deaths of children for one thousand births was in the United Provinces 352, in Bombay 320, in Burma 332, and in the Punjab 306.[1307] Referring to these figures, Wattal comments on the ‘extremely unsanitary conditions of child-birth and the appalling ignorance prevalent on the subject’.[1308] With regard to ignorance it is everywhere the same story. Of the modern Egyptians we are told that ‘the children are foul in the eyes, and are allowed to munch such indigestible dainties as beans and bread as soon as they have teeth with which to bite, while the mother protests to the lady doctor that nothing but milk has ever passed the child’s lips, though its little hand may actually be holding a hunch of raw potato’.[1309]

Of the Middle Ages again there is no exact evidence, but all we know points to a very high child mortality. Some figures for the eighteenth century from the country have been quoted and doubtless there was a considerably higher death-rate in the towns.[1310] From the general conditions and from the prevalence of disease it is obvious that it could not have been otherwise.

Within the last century there has been in most European countries a considerable decrease in child mortality. The degree of mortality varies greatly from country to country. For the same period as that for which the Indian figures were given the figures are for England and Wales 127·3, France 132·4, Germany 186·6, Hungary 207·6. New Zealand 64·4, Sweden 84·4, Australia 87·5, and Scotland 116·1.[1311] Some further reference to this subject and particularly to the differences between the various countries will be made in Chapter XI.

5. With this reference to the importance of disease, war, famine, and child mortality throughout the historical period we may pass to the consideration of the remaining factors, dealing first with the ancient empires and Asiatic peoples and afterwards with Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire. We shall find that considerable differences exist regarding the importance of the various factors as between these two divisions. Roughly speaking, with the exception of the importance of disease, conditions in the ancient empires and in Asiatic countries are similar to those in previous groups. In Europe after the introduction of Christianity we shall find that certain factors become of little or no importance, whereas others appear for the first time, and finally in the modern period we shall discover further changes. It is therefore convenient to consider the conditions in the first two sub-groups taken together and afterwards those in the latter two sub-groups.

All the evidence goes to show that celibacy and postponement of marriage were very rare in the ancient empires and are very rare among Asiatic peoples. The only instances to the contrary are such cases as those of the later days of the Roman Empire; such cases are wholly exceptional and what there is to be said about them will be deferred to the next chapter. Generally speaking, every one married at or soon after the age of puberty. In Greece ‘in various places criminal proceedings might be taken against celibates’.[1312] Though the figures on which he worked were small, Macdonell found that marriages in Rome took place between the ages of ten and twenty.[1313] In all these countries we find examples of religious celibacy. In Egypt[1314] and Chaldea[1315] there were celibates of both sexes for religious reasons, in Rome there were vestal virgins, in Persia Sun Priestesses who did not marry, and in India and Tibet there are similar examples.[1316] But unlike Christian celibacy, these instances of celibacy were of no importance whatever as regards the question of numbers. The religious celibates never formed more than an insignificant fraction of the whole population. In general, as we shall see later, marriage was strongly encouraged by religions other than Christianity for the mass of mankind. The one other important exception would seem to be Buddhism, which not only forbade marriage to the sacerdotal caste, but discouraged marriage among all those who would attain to wisdom. It would appear, however, that celibacy, though possibly widespread in the earlier days of Buddhism, soon ceased to be practised except by a small proportion of the adherents of Buddha. ‘It is said that in Nepal, under the modern Gurkha rule, the celibate occupies a lower position than the married monk, to whom the services in the temples are committed. It is said, too, that the Lamas of Sikkim and other northern countries constantly have children living with them, though they do not admit them to be their own. Yet for all that celibacy is the rule, and, nominally at any rate, the great majority of Lamistic monks in Western Asia are unmarried coenobites, who live together in monasteries.’[1317]

Much evidence could be given as to the view taken of celibacy and of the duty of marrying early. ‘The Oriental’, says Polak, ‘does not understand how any one can remain a celibate who has the chance to marry.’[1318] ‘Le célibat’, says Fustel de Coulanges, ‘devait être à la fois une impiété grave et un malheur; une impiété, parce que le célibataire mettait en péril le bonheur des mânes de sa famille; un malheur, parce qu’il ne devait reçevoir lui-même aucun culte après sa mort et ne devait pas connaître ce qui réjouit les mânes. C’était à la fois pour lui et pour ces ancêtres une sorte de damnation.’[1319] Doughty describes the reasons for the absence of celibacy among the Arabs.[1320] The same conditions are found in China.[1321] Of Corea, Ross says ‘the male human being who is never married is never called a “man”, whatever his age, but goes by the name of “yataw”, a name given by the Chinese to unmarriageable young girls, and the man of thirteen or fourteen has a perfect right to strike, abuse, order about the “yatow” of thirty who dares not so much as open his lips to complain’.[1322] ‘Among natives of India’, says Kerr, ‘it is considered an indispensable duty to enter into the marriage state.’[1323] ‘A Hindoo male’, according to Wattal, ‘must marry and beget children—son, if you please—to perform his funeral rites lest his spirit wander uneasily in the waste places of the earth. The very name of son, “Putra”, means one who saves his father’s soul from the hell called “Puta”. A Hindoo maiden unmarried at puberty is a source of social obloquy to her family and of damnation to her ancestors. Among the Mohammedans, who are not handicapped by such penalties, the marriage state is equally common, partly owing to Hindoo example, and partly to the general conditions of life in primitive society where a wife is almost a necessity both as a domestic drudge and as a helpmate in field work.’[1324]

Early marriage is considered to be a duty for all. Westermarck quotes Mohammed as saying: ‘whenever a servant of God marries verily he perfects half his religion’.[1325] According to the Laws of Manu it is a religious duty incumbent upon all.[1326] In the Vedic Age marriage was much encouraged and offspring greatly desired.[1327] Confucianism and Zoroastrianism similarly encouraged marriage. ‘A youth’, says Dubois, speaking of India, ‘who was not married before he was eighteen was considered by them to be sinning against the command of the Creator, which says “Increase and Multiply”.’[1328] ‘Almost all Chinese,’ says Gray, ‘robust or infirm, well formed or deformed, are called upon by their parents to marry so soon as they have attained the age of puberty.’[1329] ‘Marriage and the upbringing of offspring became a duty incumbent upon every Chinese who is normally fit for marriage’,[1330] say two modern Chinese authors. Similar statements are to be found regarding Burma,[1331] Upper Siam,[1332] Persia,[1333] the Mongols,[1334] and the Kalmucks.[1335]

6. Marriage before the age of puberty is not uncommon and is very prevalent in India. It is doubtful how far intercourse takes place before maturity. In the North-West Provinces of India it is stated that in most cases there is no cohabitation before puberty.[1336] This statement is confirmed by Risley; he further states that in Bengal cohabitation begins at once.[1337] In India in 1901, 243,500 girls were married under the age of five, 2,030,000 between the ages of five and ten, and 6,585,000 between the ages of ten and fifteen.[1338] Eram, speaking generally of the East, states that pre-puberty marriages are not rare.[1339] We hear that 10 per cent. of the Kirghiz marry before the beginning of menstruation.[1340] Among the Annamites[1341] and the Todas[1342] intercourse sometimes occurs before puberty. Macdonell’s figures for Rome, already referred to, show that marriage must sometimes have taken place before puberty.

7. The ancient Egyptians suckled their children for two or three years.[1343] The suckling period is prolonged in Arabia.[1344] In the Koran mothers are recommended to suckle for two years.[1345] Among Asiatic races lactation is usually extended for a considerable length of time. The Japanese sometimes do not wean their children until the fourth year.[1346] The poorer classes in Persia suckle until the third year.[1347] In Upper Siam ‘infants are generally suckled three years’.[1348] In Turkey lactation is also prolonged.[1349] Generally speaking, the evidence is to the effect that the suckling period is always prolonged—the average being perhaps somewhere about two to three years.

8. In sub-group 1 many examples are found of restraint from sexual intercourse being imposed upon married persons at certain seasons. Examples from Egypt are given by Müller.[1350] According to the Laws of Manu separation from the wife was obligatory at certain periods—for instance, at new and full moon and on certain days of the month.[1351] Similar conditions existed in Persia.[1352] Such restrictions, however, are not of much importance. Of prolonged abstention from intercourse there is little evidence. In China, according to Gray, ‘a husband is not expected to cohabit with his wife after she has conceived, nor after the child is born, during the whole period that it is being nourished at the mother’s breast. Any violation of this rule is supposed not only to cause the child to become sickly but to provoke the displeasure of the ancestors and to bring misfortune upon all members of the family. Wealthy Chinese are generally very careful in the practice of such abstention.’[1353] It is quite clear, however, from what we know of Chinese fertility that this custom is not widely practised among the people as a whole. Smith speaks of ‘the objection of the Arabs to intercourse with a nursing mother which was supposed to hurt the suckling’.[1354] In Turkey also there is said to be no intercourse during lactation.[1355] There are thus indications of the practice of this important custom, and it may be that it existed in such a degree as to have exerted considerable influence.[1356]

9. There is a general impression that the knowledge of contraceptive methods has only been acquired in modern times. This, however, is not correct. We have already seen that there is evidence of their use in the second group. In the third group there is evidence of the knowledge of certain methods in early times. Theilhaber gives some particulars regarding their employment among the Jews, German tribes, Arabs, the Franks before their conversion to Christianity, the Greeks, and the Romans.[1357] Methods are employed at the present day in China[1358] and in India,[1359] though there is some doubt as to how far they are effective. According to Wattal there is some statistical evidence from India which may be interpreted either as a result of such practices or as a result of abstention from intercourse.[1360] There is not sufficient evidence to allow of any exact estimate being made of the extent of these practices. Generally speaking, however, it would appear that it is not until we arrive at the latest period of human history that we find these practices to be of considerable importance.

10. With regard to the size of families in early times there is little exact evidence. Among Asiatic peoples at the present day we have some evidence of the degree of fertility, whereas hitherto the evidence has been only that of the number of children surviving after infanticide and infant mortality had taken their toll. This evidence from the Asiatic races we may now turn to discuss, but we may note before doing so that the evidence for the remaining races of the first sub-group gives a rather different impression than that which we obtain when studying primitive races; upon the whole we get the impression that families were at least not so markedly small as among primitive races.[1361]

Fertility is often said to be higher in the East than in Europe. So far as India is concerned this is not so. The error has arisen because attention has been paid to the crude birth-rate. When the crude birth-rate is corrected for the number of married females of reproductive age, then the true birth-rate is found to be lower than in Europe. ‘The total number of births registered in England and Wales during the year 1911 was 881,138, which when calculated on the total population gives a crude birth-rate of 24·4 per thousand. The total number of births registered in India during the same year was 9,209,703, which when calculated on the total population gives a crude birth-rate of 38·59 per thousand. It would seem therefore that the fertility in India is higher than in England. But this is not so. The total number of females of reproductive age (15 to 45) in England and Wales at the census of 1911 was 8,988,745 and if we calculate the births per thousand of such females the figure stands at 98. The total number of females of those ages in India in 1911 was 71,535,861 and the corresponding Indian figure is 128. If, however, we calculate the births on the number of married females of reproductive ages the Indian figure stands at 160 while the English figure is 196.’[1362]

The fertility in other Asiatic countries is often said to be very high; it is asserted to approach 50 per 1,000 in China. Exact figures are, however, lacking. There is no doubt that the corrected birth-rate would be much less. Among nomadic people the evidence is to the effect that the number of children is small, and this is probably connected with the practice of abortion, which is common for instance among the Arabs.

11. We have now to give some account of the factors which have a bearing upon elimination in the third group. Of these the first is abortion. Classical literature is full of references to the subject. Plato and Aristotle both permitted abortion. ‘No law in Greece or in the Roman republic or during the greater part of the Empire condemned it.’[1363] ‘A long chain of writers both pagan and Christian represent the practice as avowed and almost universal. They describe it as resulting, not simply from licentiousness or from poverty, but even from so slight a motive as vanity which made mothers shrink from the disfigurement of child-birth. They speak of a mother who had never destroyed her offspring as deserving of signal praise and they assure us that the frequency of the crime was such that it gave rise to a regular profession.’[1364] The practice was more common in Rome than in Greece.[1365] It was deplored, nevertheless, by many authors including Ovid, Juvenal, and Seneca. Some details of the methods employed are given by Theilhaber.[1366]

In sub-group 2 we find the practice to be widespread. Eram comments upon its frequency throughout the East.[1367] Wilkins says that ‘the crime of procuring abortion is one of the commonest in India’, and quotes Dr. Chevers as saying that abortion is ‘an act of almost daily commission’ and has become ‘a trade among certain of the lower midwives’. It is especially common in Bengal—perhaps 10,000 being destroyed monthly.[1368] According to Matignon, in China abortion is legal and usual during the three-year suckling period.[1369] It is also common in Annam,[1370] in Japan,[1371] Persia,[1372] and Turkey.[1373] Infanticide was condemned by Mohammed but not abortion, which is frequent among the Arabs.[1374] In Turkey it is very common;[1375] it is said to be brought about after the second birth if the husband consents.[1376] The fact that in later times we hear of enactments against abortion among the Burgundians, Ripuarians, Visigoths, Bavarians, Saxons, Frisians, and Lombards seems to point to the conclusion that the practice was common before their conversion to Christianity.[1377]

12. There is some reason for believing that infanticide was common among the Egyptians at the time of Moses.[1378] ‘The ancient Jews seem to have themselves practised infanticide, for as late as the time of Isaiah they are reproached with the habit of “slaying the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks”. In 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 and xxxiii. 6 the same statement is made. It is true that these cases may have partaken of the nature of human sacrifices rather than of ordinary infanticide, but the two generally prevailed together, and we have express testimony that both of them existed at that time among all the surrounding nations, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Syrians, and Babylonians as well as among their kindred the Carthaginians.’[1379]

Glotz has an interesting chapter on the subject of infanticide in Greece. In prehistoric times in Greece the head of the family could, as among all people of ‘Aryan origin’, dispose of his children as he wished.[1380] After examining the myths it is clear, according to Glotz, that infanticide was a daily occurrence during the period at which myths were being formed.[1381] In historical times it was universal. Most often infanticide was ordered by the father, who generally on the fifth, sometimes on the seventh or tenth, day after the birth publicly proclaimed whether he would keep the child or not.[1382] If he decided not to keep the child, it was exposed, and there is reason to think that most of the exposed children died.[1383] Infanticide was enjoined by the ideal legislation of Plato and Aristotle and by the actual legislation of Lycurgus and Solon. Summing up his examination of this subject Glotz says: ‘L’opinion de la Grèce ancienne est donc à peu près unanime. Reçue dans la vie privée, cette pratique a été admise en droit par les législatures et fondées en raison par les maîtres de la pensée.’[1384]

In very early times infanticide was general in Rome. Later the right of the father to destroy his children was somewhat restricted. ‘The power of life and death, which in Rome was originally conceded to the father over his children, would appear to involve an unlimited permission of infanticide; but a very old law, popularly ascribed to Romulus, in this respect restricted the parental rights, enjoining the father to bring up all his male children, and at least his eldest female child, forbidding him to destroy any well-formed child till it had completed its third year, when the affections of the parents might be supposed to be developed, but permitting the exposition of deformed or maimed children with the consent of their five nearest relations.’[1385] There is evidence to show that this permission was frequently utilized. The plots of Plautus and Terence sometimes turn upon the reappearance of children supposed to have been destroyed. ‘Pliny says that infanticide is really a lamentable necessity “seeing that the fertility of some women is so over-abundant in children that it needs some such practice to counterbalance it” while ... Seneca saw nothing reprehensible in it.’[1386] Suetonius has several allusions to the matter which prove that infanticide was accepted by the Romans in a very matter-of-fact spirit. For instance, in describing the public grief for the death of Germanicus, he mentions that many women exposed their infants. The opening of the fourteenth episode of the _Golden Ass_ of Apuleius describes how a husband before going forth on a journey directed his young wife that the coming babe if a girl was to be destroyed; the whole being related as a perfectly natural and common occurrence.[1387]

Among the Arabs it was very prevalent before the time of Mohammed, by whom it was forbidden. Instances are given by Smith to show the extent of the practice.[1388] Discussing the matter in another place Smith says that Wilken ‘doubts whether among the Arabs the practice was carried to such an extent as to do more than keep the sexes balanced—men being more exposed than women to violent deaths; but there is evidence that, at any rate in some places and at some times, there was a strong pressure of public opinion against bearing any daughter, even though she were the only child of her parents. If we take along with this the fact that wealthy and powerful men had often several wives, there can, I think, be no question that, at least in some parts of the country, wives must have been so scarce that the mass of the tribesmen must have been driven to practise polyandry.’[1389] The evidence from China is somewhat conflicting; this is probably to be accounted for by the variations in habits in different parts of the country. Norman has collected evidence to show its wide extent. ‘The testimony’, he says, ‘of a Chinese teacher is as follows: “Infanticide is very common among the poor, and even people in pretty easy circumstances. There is hardly a family in which at least one child has not been destroyed, and in some families four or five are disposed of.”... Another man, who is now a member of the Christian Church, says that in his village there is hardly a family that has not destroyed two or three children.... A lady contributor to the _North China Daily News_ furnished the following statistics: “I find that 160 Chinese women, all over 50 years of age, had borne 631 sons and 538 daughters. Of the sons 366 or nearly 60 per cent. had lived more than 10 years; while of the daughters only 205 or 38 per cent. had lived 10 years. The 160 women had, according to their own statement, destroyed 158 of their daughters; but none had ever destroyed a boy. As only four women reared more than three girls, the probability is that the infanticides confessed to are considerably below the truth. I have occasionally been told by a woman that she had forgotten just how many girls she had had more than she wanted. The greatest number of infanticides confessed to by any one woman is eleven.”’[1390] Gray states that infanticide prevails to a huge extent and gives an example of a young husband who had had three sons and four daughters. Of the latter three had been killed.[1391] According to Douglas the practice prevails among the poorer classes ‘to an alarming extent’.[1392] Abeel speaks of infanticide in China as ‘very common’.[1393] ‘In Pekin,’ he says, ‘after deducting more than one-half for the natural deaths the number of exposed children is, according to Barrow, about 4,000 a year.... In some Provinces not one in three is suffered to live.’[1394] The practice is said to be specially prevalent in South China.[1395] Milne says that in Canton ‘infanticide was rare. Dr. Williams, however, states that though the practice is rare in Canton it is common in Amoy. He thinks that in general the proportion of children killed is not great, but mentions two provinces wherein the practice prevails to an atrocious extent, twenty to thirty per cent. of the female children, therefore, ten to fifteen per cent. of the total number of infants born, being put to death.’[1396] The important fact, upon which we shall comment in the next chapter, seems to be that in China infanticide is practised not so much as a regular habit as in times of distress. Moule thinks that infanticide is connected with times of want, and Douglas that it is in general only committed by the poorer classes in times of distress. Norman emphasizes the fact that it is chiefly committed by the poorer classes. Giles denies its existence altogether.[1397] It is therefore of particular interest to find two modern Chinese authors speaking as follows. ‘One must not assume that such a custom is prevalent; flagrant and sometimes dramatic accounts, of which we have heard so much, only hold true in certain districts and at times of famine.’[1398] According to Faulds infanticide was formerly common in Japan.[1399]