[37] In 1911 there were 477 women doctors in England, 382 of whom were unmarried.
[38] See also pp. [7], [70], and [91].
[39] See A Defence of Aristocracy, chapter V.
[40] It will occur to some that I ought perhaps to have referred to the fact that English Law is more severe against illicit relations than is the Law of France. This is true; but, after all, English Law applies only to girls under a certain age, and is by no means repressive of illicit relations after that age.
[41] A Defence of Aristocracy, chapter V.
[42] Speaking of the prevalence of this type of girl at present, Arabella Kenealy says (op. cit., p. 84): “So devitalized and neurasthenic are many of our pretty young girls that their flowerlike faces, topping over-tall and undeveloped bodies, suggest delicate blossoms crowning long attenuated, sapless stems. Neither faces nor bodies are vitalized and athrill with powers rooted in healthful organs, vivified by healthful functions, and instinct with warm, iron-rich, magnetic blood. They show that making for beauty which is inherent in the Woman-traits, but which, in latter-day girls, owing to defective constitutional vigour or to educational, social or industrial exhaustion, has been able to realize itself only in sickly and weed-like development.”
[43] Even the fiction they read did not help them to the correct attitude in this. Does Lord Lytton ever express any horror at his hero and heroine, who were both consumptive, falling in love with each other in Pilgrims on the Rhine? And how many other cases could be quoted!
[44] The teaching that is most steadily opposed to this view is that of Christianity; for, if once you admit that the physical points of a human being are important, you underrate the supreme importance of the so-called “soul,” which takes precedence of everything. That is why Christianity has always strongly deprecated any doctrine of physiognomy or human selection.
[45] For instance, most of the stigmata of degeneration and disease are well known. Why are they not generally taught to the young? This would constitute at least a start in the right direction. The ancient Hindus were in this respect, as in many others, very much more civilized than ourselves. In the Laws of Manu, Book III, definite hints are given to the young man regarding the kind of girl he should choose. In verse seven we read: “Let him avoid that family (in selecting a wife) which neglects the sacred rites, one in which no male children (are born), one in which the Veda is not studied, one (the members of) which have thick hair on the body, those which are subject to hemorrhoids, phthisis, weakness of digestion, epilepsy, or white or black leprosy.” Verse eight: “Let him not marry a maiden (with) reddish (hair), nor one who has a redundant member, nor one who is sickly, nor one either with no hair (on the body) or too much; nor one who is garrulous or has red (eyes).” Verse ten: “Let him wed a female free from bodily defects who has an agreeable name, the (graceful) gait of a Hamsa or an elephant, a moderate (quantity of) hair on the body and on the head, small teeth, and soft limbs.”