It is proposed in the following remarks to meet an objection that has been repeatedly urged against the possible adoption of any system of eugenics,[2] namely, that human nature would never brook interference with the freedom of marriage.
In my reply I shall proceed on the not unreasonable assumption that, when the subject of eugenics shall be well understood, and when its lofty objects shall have become generally appreciated, they will meet with some recognition both from the religious sense of the people and from its laws. The question to be considered is: How far have marriage restrictions proved effective, when sanctified by the religion of the time, by custom, and by law? I appeal from armchair criticism to historical facts.
To this end, a brief history will be given of a few widely spread customs in successive paragraphs. It will be seen that, with scant exceptions, they are based on social expediency, and not on natural instincts. Each paragraph might have been expanded into a long chapter, had that seemed necessary. Those who desire to investigate the subject further can easily do so by referring to standard works in anthropology, among the most useful of which, for the present purpose, are Frazer's Golden Bough, Westermarck's History of Marriage, Huth's Marriage of Near Kin, and Crawley's Mystic Rose.
I. Monogamy. It is impossible to label mankind by one general term, either as animals who instinctively take a plurality of mates, or who consort with only one; for history suggests the one condition as often as the other. Probably different races, like different individuals, vary considerably in their natural
