Hegel, in his celebrated definition of marriage,[164] which he regards as the embodiment of the reality of the species and as the spiritual unity of the natural sexes brought about by self-conscious love, as legal-moral love, has not done justice to the recognition and development of the individuality of both parties. The “unity,” the “one body and one soul,” corresponds indeed to the patriarchal conception, according to which the woman is completely absorbed into the man; it does not correspond, however, to the modern idea of individual marriage, in which both man and woman are united as free personalities. This, as we shall see later, is the meaning of the struggle for “free-love,” which must not be confused, as, for example, it is confused by Ludwig Stein (“Beginnings of Civilization,” p. 110), with the free-love, the hetairism, of ancient times, or with the simple extra-conjugal intercourse of the present day.
Neither the mother-right alone, nor the father-right alone, is competent to satisfy the ideals of modern civilized human beings, in respect of the configuration of the social forms of the amatory life. This is only possible when both forms of right are united in a new form, by equal rights given to both sexes.[165]
Hence, in association with the endeavour for the free individual development of the feminine nature, we find also the tendency to reintroduce into public life, into true valuation and honour, the ancient conception of the mother-right.
“Slowly and gradually,” says Kohler, “has the reawakened idea of the mother-right been gnawing with a sharp tooth, now in one way, now in another, at the rigid fetters of this system, and has loosened them.... That in this manner woman will attain a worthier position is certain. But the unitary family-sense has long ceased among us to be the powerful incentive to action that it is among the purely agnate (patriarchal) peoples.... Our own conditions render it possible that the institutions of civilization will continue to thrive, even though the family tie is no longer tense and exclusive.”
The modern civilized man can quietly accustom himself to the idea that the old patriarchal family under the dominion of the father-right will gradually disappear; and that at the same time the patriarchal conventional marriage of ancient times, still to all appearance so firmly established, will be replaced by other, freer forms. The idea of marriage, and its value as a form of social life, remains meanwhile unaffected. It is possible to be a critic of the old, outlived form of marriage, without therefore being exposed to the suspicion of wishing to dispense with the idea of “marriage” altogether. The one-sided, juristic, political, sacramental, and ecclesiastical conception of the past does justice neither to the social nor to the individual significance of marriage. He who, like Westermarck, regards monogamic marriage as something primitively ordained, as if it were a biological fact, and denies completely the development of that institution out of lower forms, denies also the possibility of any extensive transformation of the existing forms of marriage. The common mistake is, to place on the one hand monogamy in its most ideal form, that of life-long marriage, and on the other hand, the so-called “free love,” understanding by free love completely unregulated extra-conjugal sexual intercourse. It is not a matter for surprise that, in respect of both of these extreme forms of sexual relationship, a pessimistic view should easily gain ground. According to the point of view, one party will insist on the intolerable character, in relation to the need for individual freedom and as regards the development of personality, of a lifelong marriage of duty; whilst the other party will lay stress upon the equally great, if not greater, dangers of the unrestrained practice of extra-conjugal sexual intercourse.
With regard to recent views on the marriage problem, the reader will do well to consult the thoughtful pamphlet of Gabriele Reuter, “The Problem of Marriage” (Berlin, 1907). The author points out that there is a “deep-lying dissatisfaction with the existing marriage conditions, a yearning and restless need for improvement.” In marriage, she holds, the bodily and spiritual process of human development is completed in the most concentrated manner. As a cause of the numerous unhappy marriages of our time, she points to the divergencies, so widely manifest at the present day, between modes of thought and views of life among members of the same strata of society and among those of the same degree of education, more especially in religious matters, and she refers also to experiments made in respect of new modes of life, such as the woman’s movement. According to Gabriele Reuter, the child will become the regulator of all the changes in the married state which we have to expect in the future. As “marriage,” she defines that earnest union between man and woman which is formed for the purpose of a life in common, and with the intention of procreating and bringing up children, and she regards it as altogether beside the question whether that union has been affected with or without civil or ecclesiastical sanction. In contrast with this idea of “marriage,” there would be other fugitive or more enduring unions, serving only for excitement and sensual enjoyment. It is interesting to note that the author recommends to the modern woman “good-humoured and motherly forbearance” in respect of marital infidelity. For a woman’s own good and for that of her children, it is more important that her husband should show her love, respect, and friendship, than that he should preserve unconditional physical faithfulness. But the author here ignores the possibility of venereal infection as a result of occasional unfaithfulness, which very seriously threatens the well-being of the wife and the children! Very wisely she advises a facilitation of divorce. This would not make husband and wife careless in their relations one to the other; on the contrary, it would make both more careful and thoughtful in the avoidance of anything causing pain to one another. The children should always remain with the mother up to the age of fourteen years. A detailed and valuable account of the problems of modern marriage will be found also in the work “Regarding Married Happiness: the Experiences, Reflections, and Advice of a Physician” (Wiesbaden, 1906).
Fortunately, by the legal introduction of civil marriage and of divorce the necessity has now been recognized by the State of leaving open for many persons a middle course—one which lies between lifelong marriage (whose sacramental character is thus abandoned) and free extra-conjugal sexual intercourse, and yet maintains the tendency towards the ideal of monogamic marriage.
The principle of divorce forms the most important foundation at once for a future reformation of marriage, and for a rational view, one doing equal justice to the interests of society and those of the individual, of the relations between man and wife. By the introduction of divorce, the State itself has recognized the purely personal character of conjugal relations, and has admitted that circumstances arise in which the marriage ceases to fulfil its aims and becomes injurious to both parties. Thus the State has proclaimed the rights of the individual personality in the married state.
In the marriage problem, the so-called “duplex sexual morality” also plays an important part—that is to say, the idea that man is by nature inclined to polygamy, but woman to monogamy. Herein, indeed, the thoroughly correct idea was dominant that the cohabitation of one woman with several men—be it understood we refer to simultaneous cohabitation—is harmful to the offspring. From this, however, the only permissible inference is that for the purposes of the procreation of children and of racial hygiene “monogamy” can be demanded of woman on rationalistic grounds—that is to say, the intercourse of woman should be restricted to a single man during such a time and for such a purpose. But it is not legitimate from these considerations to deduce the necessity of permanent “monandry” for woman.
I will consider this question somewhat more exactly, and in doing so will refer to the interesting essay of Rudolph Eberstadt on “The Economic Importance of Sanitary Conditions” in relation to marriage, being the concluding chapter of “Health and Disease in Relation to Marriage and the Married State,” by Senator and Kaminer (Rebman, 1906), because here we find a very clear recognition of the confusion between monogamy and monandry.