The joy in having progeny and the responsibility toward same makes the relation of love existing between two persons one of longer duration. A couple desirous of entering marriage should therefore carefully consider whether their respective traits of character are suited to their union. The answer to this grave question ought to be unbiased. But that is only possible by the exclusion of every other interest that has no direct bearing on the purpose of the union, satisfaction of the sexual impulse and propagation of one’s own personality by means of propagation of the race, guided by a certain measure of insight that controls blind passion. As these conditions fail to be observed in a tremendous number of cases in present-day society, it is evident that modern marriage frequently fails to fulfill its true object and that we are not justified in regarding it as an ideal institution.
How many marriages are contracted on an entirely different basis than the one described above cannot be demonstrated. The parties concerned like to have their marriage appear different from what it really is. Here a condition of hypocrisy presents itself, such as no previous social period has known in a similar degree. The state, the political representative of society, has no inclination to institute investigations that would cast an unfavorable light upon society. The state itself marries its officials and servants according to maxims that cannot be measured by the standard that should constitute the foundation of true marriage.
[48] “The sentiments and feelings with which husband and wife approach one another undoubtedly have a decisive influence upon the effects of sexual intercourse and transmit certain traits of character upon the being that is coming into existence.” Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell. “The Moral Education of the Young in Relation to Sex.”—See also Goethe’s “Affinity,” where he distinctly shows the effects of the feelings that prompt two human beings to intimate intercourse.
[2.—Decline of the Birthrate.]
Marriage, in order to realize the purpose of nature, should be a union founded on mutual love. But this motive is rarely met with unalloyed under present conditions. To the great majority of women, marriage is a means of livelihood that they must obtain at any cost. On the other hand, a great many men regard marriage from a purely commercial point of view, weighing and considering its material advantages and disadvantages. Even those marriages that are not based on selfish, sordid motives, are frequently marred and broken up by the harsh realities of life. Only rarely those hopes are realized that were held by a man and woman prior to their marriage. That is only natural. For in order to lead a contented married life not only mutual love and respect are required, but economic security as well; that is, a certain measure of the necessities and comforts of life in order to satisfy the needs of man and wife and their children. Material cares and the cruel struggle for existence are destructive to marital contentment and happiness. But these material cares increase with the increasing number of offspring; in other words, the better marriage fulfills its natural object, the greater become these cares. The peasant, for instance, takes pleasure in every new calf that his cow brings forth, he cheerfully counts his suckling pigs and relates the good news of their arrival to his neighbors. But he looks somber when a new baby is added to the number of children that he feels able to support without care—not a large number, forsooth—and he looks doubly somber if the newly-born babe has the ill fortune of being a girl.
We may say then that both marriages and births are controlled by economic conditions. This is especially evident in France where agriculture is carried on by a division of the land into small lots, the products of which are not sufficient to support a large family. The famous, or notorious, French system of having no more than two children, a system that has developed into a social institution in France, is the result. In many provinces the population is accordingly almost stationary, while in others there has been a marked decline. The same results that the methods of farming have produced in the rural districts, have been produced in the cities by industry. In fact, the birthrate is declining even more rapidly in the cities.
The number of births is constantly decreasing in France, in spite of the fact that the number of marriages is increasing. This is true not only of France, but of the majority of civilized countries. This fact points to a development produced by our social conditions that should make the ruling classes think. In 1881, 937,057 children were born in France; in 1906, 806,847, and in 1907, only 773,969. In 1907, 163,088 fewer children were born than in 1881. It is a noteworthy fact that the number of illegitimate births did not decrease. There were 70,079 of these in 1881; during the period from 1881 to 1890 they attained their highest figure, 75,754, and in 1906 there still were 70,866. The decline of the birthrate then was confined entirely to the legitimate births. During the entire century a decline of the birthrate was noticeable. The following table shows the number of births for every thousand inhabitants of France during more than a century:
| 1801–1810 | 332 |
| 1811–1820 | 316 |
| 1821–1830 | 308 |
| 1831–1840 | 290 |
| 1841–1850 | 273 |
| 1851–1860 | 262 |
| 1861–1870 | 261 |
| 1881–1890 | 239 |
| 1891–1900 | 221 |
| 1905 | 206 |
| 1906 | 206 |
| 1907 | 197 |
This represents a decline of 135 births for every thousand inhabitants from 1801 to 1907. It is natural that this symptom is a cause of much concern to French statesmen and economists. But the problem is not confined to France. Since a long time the same phenomenon may be observed in Germany, especially in Saxony, where the decline of the birthrate has been even more rapid. In Germany there were the following number of births for every thousand inhabitants: