It is, indeed, impossible to believe that there ever was a time when conjugal affection was entirely wanting in the human race. Though originally of far less intensity than parental love, especially on the mother’s side, as being of less importance for the existence of the species, yet it seems, in its most primitive form, to have been as old as marriage itself. It must be a certain degree of affection that induces the male to defend the female during her period of pregnancy; but often it is the joint care of the offspring, more than anything else, that makes the married couple attached to each other. With reference to the Dacotahs, Mr. Prescott remarks that “as children increase, the parents appear to be more affectionate.”[2095]
Of course it is impossible to suppose that mutual love can generally be the motive which leads to marriage when the wife is captured or purchased from a foreign tribe. In the main, Mr. Hall’s assertion as to the Eskimo visited by him, that “love—if it come at all—comes after the marriage,”[2096] holds good for many savage peoples. Among the Australians, for instance, according to Mr. Brough Smyth, love has often no part in the preparations for marriage. “The bride is dragged from her home—she is unwilling to leave it; and if fears are entertained that she will endeavour to escape, a spear is thrust through her foot or her leg. A kind husband will, however, ultimately evoke affection, and fidelity and true love are not rare in Australian families.”[2097]
The affection accompanying the union of the sexes has gradually developed in proportion as altruism in general has increased. Thus love has only slowly become the refined feeling it is in the heart of a highly civilized European. In Eastern countries with their ancient civilization there exists even now but little of that tenderness towards the woman which is the principal charm of our own family life. In China, up to recent times, it was considered “good form” for a man to beat his wife, and, if the Chinaman of humble rank spared her a little, he did so only in order not to come under the necessity of buying a successor.[2098] In Hindu families, according to Dubois, sincere mutual friendship is rarely met with. “It is in vain,” he says, “to expect, between husband and wife, that reciprocal confidence and kindness which constitute the happiness of a family. The object for which a Hindu marries is not to gain a companion to aid him in enduring the evils of life, but a slave to bear children and be subservient to his rule.”[2099] The love of which the Persian poets sing has either a symbolic or a very profane meaning.[2100] Among the Arabs, says Burckhardt, “the passion of love is, indeed, much talked of by the inhabitants of towns; but I doubt whether anything is meant by them more than the grossest animal desire.”[2101] Mr. Finck remarks that in the whole of the Bible there is not a single reference to romantic love.[2102] And even in Greece, according to some authorities, the love of the sexes was little more than sexual instinct.[2103]
It is also obvious that marriage cannot be contracted from affection where the young women before marriage are kept quite apart from the men, as is done in Eastern countries. In China it often happens that the parties have not even seen each other till the wedding-day; and, in Greece, custom was scarcely less rigorous in this respect.[2104] In vain Plato urged that young men and women should be more frequently permitted to meet one another, so that there should be less enmity and indifference in the married life.[2105] Plutarch hopes that love will come after marriage.[2106]
The feeling which makes husband and wife true companions for better and worse can grow up only in societies where the altruistic sentiments of man are strong enough to make him recognize woman as his equal, and where she is not shut up as an exotic plant in a green-house, but is allowed to associate freely with men. In this direction European civilization has been advancing for centuries, and there can be no reason to fear that it will ever be permanently diverted from the path by which alone some of the most important of its ends can be attained.
When affection came to play a more prominent part in human sexual selection, higher regard was paid to intellectual, emotional, and moral qualities, through which the feeling is chiefly provoked. Later on, we shall see how great are the consequences which spring from this fact. For the present it may be enough to say that the preference given to higher qualities by civilized men contributes much to the mental improvement of the race. Dr. Stark observes that the intemperate, profligate, and criminal classes do not commonly marry; and the like is to a large extent true of persons who are very inferior in intellect, emotions, and will.[2107]
Affection depends in a very high degree upon sympathy. Though distinct aptitudes, these two classes of emotions are most intimately connected: affection is strengthened by sympathy, and sympathy is strengthened by affection. Community of interests, opinions, sentiments, culture, and mode of life, as being essential to close sympathy,[2108] is therefore favourable to warm affection. If love is excited by contrast, it is so only within certain limits. The contrast must not be so great as to exclude sympathy.
Great difference of age is fatal to close sympathy. Wieland noted that most people who fall in love do so with persons of about their own age;[2109] and statistics prove the observation to be correct. Men who marry comparatively late in life usually avoid too great difference in age.[2110] The foundation of this admiration and preference, modified by age, says Mr. Walker, “appears to be the similarity of objects and interests which are inseparable from similar periods of life, the association of these with a similar intensity of sexual desire, the consequent production of similar sympathy, and the resolve that it shall be permanent.”[2111]
A very important factor is similarity in the degree of cultivation. It seldom happens that a “gentleman” falls in love with a peasant-girl, or an artizan with a “lady.” This does more than almost anything else to maintain the separation of the different classes, and to preserve the existing distribution of wealth among the various groups of society.
Want of sympathy prevents great divisions of human beings—such as different races or nations, hereditary castes, classes, and adherents of different religions—from intermarrying, even where personal affection plays no part in the choice of the mate. Thus many uncivilized peoples carefully avoid marrying out of their own tribe, the chief reason being, I think, the strong dislike which distinct savage and barbarous nations have for one another. Mr. McLennan called such peoples “endogamous,” in contradistinction to peoples who are “exogamous,” i.e., do not marry within their own tribe or clan. But this classification has caused much confusion, “exogamy” and “endogamy” not being real contraries. For there exists among every people an outer circle—to use Sir Henry Maine’s very appropriate terminology—out of which marriage is either prohibited, or generally avoided; as well as an inner circle, including the clan, or, at any rate, the very nearest kinsfolk, within which no marriage is allowed.