It is desirable that the association of man and woman in marriage should be amiable, but that is not all that is to be desired. Neither is the physiological improvement of offspring the sole thing to be considered. The married pair may surround themselves with beautiful children, but if the conditions of the marriage have made them poor, if the parents are unable to educate their children, or to give them the necessities and advantages which are prompted by a laudable ambition, life will be shorn of most of its charms. And, on the other hand, if life is spent in one long scramble for riches, and there is in the union nothing but the elements of sordid wealth, the actual standard of that marriage, as to the true richness of life, will be poor indeed.
These three grand consummations of Amiable Association, Financial Success, and Physiological Improvement are most devoutly to be wished, but how shall they be attained?
Before I proceed to give you my own theory, I want to tear down one or two others. I am nothing if not combative, and believe that the best way to establish truth is to begin by tearing down error. I wish to attack, in the first place, a theory much taught and too generally practiced, that one should seek, in matrimony, a companion as near like himself as possible. It is astonishing to see what a hold this theory has upon the public mind, considering the fact that it never has had any good results to support it. A distinguished Physiologist, in a recent work which has been extensively circulated, uses these words in speaking of a proper selection in matrimony:—
“What should be sought for is a congenial companion. A congenial companion is one who, under any given set of circumstances, will think, feel and act exactly as we would, not for the sake of agreeing with us, but of his own free will, etc.”
We consent that a congenial companion should be sought for, but we differ very much from the learned gentleman, just quoted, as to what constitutes a congenial companion. To comply with the conditions he expresses, presupposes that the persons, who are to be congenial companions, must be alike in character, temperament, disposition; for if they differ in any of these, Phrenology proves that they will, under the same combination of circumstances, think, feel and act differently also. We will examine this theory in the light of results and see how it will work.
We will suppose the case of a man of the Bilious Temperament, dark complexion, hair and eyes; Moderate Caution; small Vitativeness, Hope and Self-esteem; large Destructiveness and Acquisitiveness. Such a combination gives a strong tendency to suicide in cases of financial loss. We marry him to a wife exactly like himself, and one day he comes home and informs her that an unlucky speculation has carried away their fortune, and he has resolved upon suicide. His wife, being a person “who, under any combination of circumstances, thinks, feels and acts” exactly as he does, raises no objection. “All right, my love. You take arsenic, and I’ll take strychnine,” and they go to perdition together. There is not enough vitality in such a marriage to last them over one disaster.
Study this theory to its legitimate conclusion in all cases, and you will find that its results are disastrous. Moreover, it is contrary to nature. It is not because a man is like a woman that she admires him. If this were true, the little emasculated dudes, who cannot raise moustaches, would be more in demand. It is not because a woman is like a man that he loves her. If this were true, the bearded lady in the Dime Museum would be at a premium on the matrimonial market. It is because each is unlike the other, and because each recognizes in the other something, without which nature is incomplete, that love exists, and each is attracted to the other by a force as irresistible as gravitation itself.
But another fellow comes along and proposes to remedy the whole matter with another theory. And he tells you to marry somebody who is your opposite in everything; somebody who, under every combination of circumstances, will think, feel and act differently from your own impulses. And he hopes, by the fact that you will pull one way and your companion another, to establish some sort of an equilibrium that will keep you on your feet. If we follow this theory, like the other, to its legitimate conclusion, we will find the old problem repeating itself, “When an immovable body meets an irresistible body, what is the result?” According to this theory, I should step into this audience and select the most delicate, refined and accomplished lady among you and marry her to a South African cannibal, and I would produce correct results.
The Mormon and the Mohammedan advocate polygamy. The Koran says a man must have four wives in order to always be able to find one in a good humor. There is one answer to polygamy which forever settles the question. The highest orders of animals and men are gifted by nature with an instinct prompting the union, in pairs, for life of the male and female. This instinct is located in the occipital region of the brain, and is called, in Phrenological language, Conjugality. It is large in the lion and the eagle, and in all mating birds and animals. Those animals which associate promiscuously are devoid of this sense. There is no grander example of conjugal fidelity than the eagle, the monarch of birds, building, with his consort, their rugged home on the breast of some beetling crag, and there rearing their offspring and remaining true to each other for a lifetime, and at last, when disabled by age, nourished and fed by the young birds, no doubt impelled to the filial task by respect for their magnificent virtues.
If the sense of conjugality is omitted from the organization of a man or woman, they cannot be held responsible if they fail to conform to its impulses. But let every man or woman, in the possession of a complete brain, conform to the instincts of nature and emulate the virtue of the eagle. Those who practice polygamy, or who associate promiscuously, or are guilty of conjugal infidelity, are, in plain scientific language, deficient in sense—the sense of conjugality.