MARRIAGE

It is an interesting subject ­and one which has touched, or will probably touch, most of our lives, therefore it may not be unprofitable to study it a little, and what it means and what it should mean; because, in the present upheaval of all our old beliefs, marriage, as a sensible institution, is being attacked upon many sides.

It is extremely easy to pull down a house, but it requires skill and special training to rebuild it again; and before dragging the roof off and demolishing the walls, it would be wiser to have made a distinct plan and provided the materials ready for the reconstruction of a new habitation, that the rain and the wind may not overcome us when we have no shelter for our heads.  But this is what the attackers of marriage have failed to do as yet.  Here are three facts which we can begin by looking at.

Firstly. Some kind of union between man and woman, consolidated by the law, is necessary for the continuation of a race in vigour and moral upliftment.

Secondly. It is admitted by great philosophers and deep thinkers that the welfare of the community is of more importance than the fluctuating desires of the individual.

Thirdly. A fine ideal, however impossible of attainment, is a force for good to be held up before the eyes of the mass of the people, who, however much actual education has advanced, are still too unendowed with personal brain to have any judgment themselves ­their capacities only allowing them to see the effects of things upon their immediate surroundings without perceiving the causes, and therefore leaving them incapable of judging what could be good for the country, the race, or humanity in general.

After all these centuries, legal marriage still holds, because no one has been able to suggest any other union which could take its place without bringing chaos.  And it seems more than likely that no one will ever be sufficiently inspired so to do!  Thus let us now consider the present legal marriage as still being a stable fact, and see how we can make the best of it.  In it there are two things which both man and woman forget ­or refuse to face ­and which are perhaps the chief causes of most unhappiness.  Man forgets that his kind words of love and sympathy matter far more to the actual happiness of the woman than any of his deeds:  because words fill and satisfy her imagination, which is active whenever she is alone; and kind deeds, with few or indifferent words, make very little impression upon it.  Woman forgets ­or will not face ­the fact that man is by nature a polygamous animal.  There is no use in arguing about this and saying he ought not to be, and that it is a horrible idea.  It is a physiological fact, and to dispute it is to criticise the Almighty’s scheme for ensuring a continued population.  That man should have polygamous instincts is essential for this scheme to work against any odds.

Whatever we choose to say in contradiction to this resolves itself into empty words, the fact of nature remaining.  It would be just as sensible to try to argue that, because we do not like to drink sea water, it has no business to be salt! and to decide that it is not salt! and that we will not recognise that it is salt!  The ocean would just laugh at us, and remain briny!  And no doubt Nature laughs at silly woman too, when she tries to judge man without understanding the elementary principle of creation.

This being grasped clearly, it must be seen that monogamous marriage is an ideal state, not a natural state, and it must be admitted to be such, and lived up to as an ideal, not undertaken with the notion that fidelity in man is natural, and infidelity an unnatural thing.  It is the other way about because of the fundamental instincts of man, which continuously and subconsciously suggest to him the necessity for self-preservation, and in its larger sense self-preservation means species-preservation.

Woman, on the other hand, although unconsciously inspired by this same fundamental instinct of species-preservation, is not naturally polygamous, or rather polyandrous, because such a state would militate against this end by eventually destroying pure offspring.  She only becomes so under certain conditions.  Fidelity, then, is, so to speak, a natural state for woman, and she has not to fight against any fundamental instinct of her sex in order to preserve it ­she has only to resist perverted desire, which is an exotic growth, the outcome of civilisation.  Thus fidelity is much harder for man, who, to succeed in being faithful, is obliged to dominate a natural instinct, which is a far more difficult thing to do than to fight against an exotic desire; because all natural things are governed by inexorable and eternal laws, and are not at the mercy of circumstance.  Thus the natural instinct of man is at work all the time in continuous activity ­and the exotic desire of woman is intermittent, and the result of circumstance.

Of course, all this has been said before by every serious thinker, and I am only reiterating these facts because the general readers may have forgotten them, and I must bring them to their recollection to make the rest of our discussion upon marriage clear.

These nature instincts being admitted, we can get on to a survey of legal marriage.  At first, it must have been an affair of expediency.  The woman was probably expected to be faithful, and brute force took care that she was so, or that she immediately paid the price of possible contamination of offspring by being killed.  She was expected to be faithful for a natural reason, not for a spiritual or sentimental one; the reason being, as already inferred, to ensure the purity of the offspring.  Man had no need to be faithful to one woman to secure this end, and never, in consequence, dreamed of being so.

All through Pagan times infidelity in man was rampant and recognised, and not looked upon as sin.  And when woman became civilised enough to have exotic desires, she lost her natural instinct, that of preservation of pure offspring, and became liable to vagrant fancies and often a vicious creature.

Then the Church arrived and turned marriage into a sacrament; presumably with the noble intention of trying to elevate man and overcome his carnal nature.  Man outwardly conformed, and, with his whole soul’s desire to be true and to uplift himself, each individual who really believed no doubt did war with his instincts, and numbers probably succeeded in conquering them.  While woman, always a creature of more delicate nervous susceptibilities, flung herself with furore under the influences of spiritual things, and in the truly devout cases overcame her grafted desires and returned to natural instincts.  But in beings of both sexes who were unconvinced by religion, infidelity continued to flourish, as it does even to this day.  A man who truly believes that he is sinning in being unfaithful, and who understands that outside opinion is nothing in the soiling of his own soul, but that the matter is between himself and God, will always be faithful in body to a woman he has wedded, whether he cares for her or not.  But a man who has not this conviction, and who does not live in this intimate relation to God, has no reason to hold him from indulging his natural instinct, except the fear of being found out, and when his sagacity has suggested safeguards against this, his instinct will certainly give itself expression.  It is all a question of personal belief.  There are numbers of good and honest characters who do not feel convinced that entire fidelity in man to one woman was intended by the Creator, and who therefore feel no degradation in the latitude they allow themselves.  It is not for us to argue which are right and which are wrong, but to stick to the subject of marriage and how it can perhaps be made happier in these present days, when all other conditions of life are changing, by a better comprehension of fundamental instincts and laws of nature.

Woman has developed so far that generally she thinks she is (and sometimes she really is!) a reasonable and balanced creature, with strong individuality ­and personal tastes and likes and dislikes.  She is now ill-fitted to keep them all in subservience to man, unless he is her intellectual master.  She may have wedded only because the emotion of sex (not understood as such, and called by a number of other names such as “love,” “devotion,” “attraction”) forced her at one of its powerful moments to take a physical mate ­totally unsuited to her moral calibre.  But she has knelt at the altar and sworn vows before God ­and perhaps has fulfilled woman’s original mission in the world, and become the mother of children ­so what is to be done to rectify her mistake and its unhappy consequences?

She must look the whole circumstances of it in the face and ask herself whether she herself threw dust in her own eyes as regards the character of her husband, whether he deceived her in this, or whether they just drifted together, each to blame as much as the other, through the attraction of sex and the cruelty of ignorance.  She may regret it a thousandfold ­but she has done the thing of her own free will, no one forced her to wed the man; she may have done so unwillingly in some cases ­and for ulterior motives, but at all events she was consenting and not dragged to church resisting, and so if she is sensible she will use the whole of her intelligence to make the best of it.  She will look to the end of her every action and her every thought.  Will brooding over her “rights,” and the wrongs he has inflicted, mend them?  Will it do anything but give her vanity ­the satisfaction of self-pity?  Certainly not.

If she has really evolved enough to wish to impose her opinions and individuality upon her household or the community, she will have realised that the welfare of the home for which she is responsible, and the community to which she belongs, are, or ought to be, of far more consequence to her than her own personal emotions.  Therefore she must ask herself whether she has any right to upset the happiness of the one, and the conception of good of the other, by indulging in personal quarrels and bickerings, or open scandal with her mate.  A really noble and unselfish woman would never consider her personal emotion before her duty to God and to her neighbour.  It is because the outlook of woman is as a rule so pitifully narrow and self-centred that she often makes a useless and unhappy wife, and shipwrecks her own and others’ futures.

Man has gone on with his brute force, and his physical and mental attraction, and his tastes and beliefs and aspirations very much the same for thousands of years.  Numbers of them were brutes then, and numbers are brutes still and will remain so.  It is only woman who has so incredibly changed, and after staying immeasurably behind in importance and in intellectuality for countless centuries, now seeks to equal if not outstep man in all things.  It would be well for man to wake up to the fact that he is now wedding a woman with every sense and nerve and conception of life far in advance of what his mother believed herself to be capable of ­and so his methods towards her in return must not be as his father’s were.  If man wishes to have the good, domestic, obedient wife his father ­perhaps one should go farther back and say grandfather! ­expected ­and got ­he must either choose a timid weakling who becomes just his echo, or he must learn to treat the modern woman as a comrade, a being who mentally can understand and follow his aspirations and even assist him in his desires, a creature to respect and consult, and whom he cannot rule just because he is a man and she is a woman ­but can only do so, and bring her to obedience, when he has shown her his intellectual superiority and his wisdom.

Woman is as willing to be ruled as ever she was ­she always adores a master; but she has grown too intelligent to bow her head just because a man is a man ­he must be the man.  Man is naturally fighting for his old omnipotence, which he possessed regardless of his personal endowment, simply because he was a male creature ­and the foolish section of woman is fighting man, with bombs and tricks and frantic words, instead of convincing him by her wisdom and attainments, by her demonstrations of knowledge of life and its duties and responsibilities, that she has grown at last indeed fitted to be treated as an equal and a comrade, not as a plaything and a slave.

Who does not respect a woman who fulfils all her obligations with grace and charm, whose house is well ordered, whose friends are well entertained by her fine mind, and whose children are well brought up and full of understanding?  She is indeed more precious than rubies and far more full of influence for the good of her community than she who shouts of rights and wrongs and votes and such-like.  The first woman could control a hundred votes, and help a government, but the second can only clog the wheels of the sex’s advancement.

Now we get back to marriage!

And the first and foremost thing to be understood is that it is a frightful responsibility to undertake, and that all those who enter into this bond lightly and for frivolous motives, or from just drifting, will be made by fate to pay the price.

Think of it!  Two people stand up and swear before God to continue to love one another until death do them part.  They solemnly stand there and make vows about an emotion over which they have no more control than they have over the keeping of the wind in the south.  They have only control, if they have strong wills, over its demonstration.  And then in nine cases out of ten neither thinks for a moment afterwards, of his or her responsibility of trying to make possible the observance of these vows, by keeping alight the flame of love in the other’s heart.  A man utterly disillusions a woman and then blames her, not himself, for her ceasing to care for him, and being eventually attracted by some one else!  A woman disgusts or bores a man, and then bewails her sad lot, and calls the man a brute for being indifferent, and a shameful creature for looking elsewhere for consolation!  In all marriages there is no one to blame or praise for unhappiness or happiness but the two individuals themselves.  It is his fault ­or misfortune ­if she no longer cares, and likewise hers in the parallel case ­and it is owing to the weakness of either if outside circumstances have been able to interfere.  Thus to ensure happiness there must be a tremendous sense of personal responsibility, and there should be understanding of life and understanding of nature instincts and understanding of sex instincts; and a ruthless tearing away of the false values which a Victorian age grafted upon religion, narrowing the mind of woman as to man’s needs ­and narrowing man’s conception of woman’s mental capacity.

No woman must ever forget in her relation to man that “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” and in this I am not only speaking literally of shekels of gold and silver, but of the power incorporated in certain personalities; and man, if he chose to exert it, has always force majeure at his command in the last extremity, although in these days of Herculean young women he may lose even this in time!

Before undertaking to play that most difficult part of wife, every girl ought to ask herself, Does she really care for the man enough to make her use her intelligence to understand him, and to try to keep him loving her?  Or if she does not personally care enough for him to trouble about this ­will the situation of her husband in the world satisfy her, and make the bondage, unleavened by love, of the care of house, servants, and possible children, worth while?

Before undertaking the situation she ought to look at every aspect of the case, and question herself searchingly upon her own aims and ends, and if the actual facts will or will not fit in with them.  Having made up her mind that for one reason or another it is for her happiness to take a certain man for her mate, she ought then sedulously to cultivate all the aspects of the condition which can conduce to peace and to the attainment and enjoyment of that end.  She must not forget that the man has paid her the highest honour a man can pay a woman.  He has selected her to be his life’s companion.  He proposes in nine cases out of ten, to provide her with a home and a position in life, and to take upon himself the responsibility of her maintenance (when the woman has money of her own this question is different naturally).  But in all cases the man in asking her to marry him has shown that something in her ­or in her possessions ­makes her appear worth the giving up of his liberty.  So she owes him just as much as the thing he took her for.  If for her money, and she knows it is for that, and she has been sufficiently humble to accept him on those terms ­she owes him money.  If for love ­she owes him at least the outside observances of love.  If he has pretended love and it is for some other motive, his Nemesis will fall upon himself in the disillusion and contempt he will inspire.  But in all cases the woman, through want of intelligence or pure misfortune, has crossed the Rubicon with him; she has allowed him to teach her the meaning of dual life ­she has put it into his power with her to create future lives.  She cannot, for any price or any prayers, recross that fatal stream.  So for all reasons of common sense ­and above all, sense of responsibility to the community ­she had better make the best of her bargain.

Likewise, man should pause and think, Is it merely because I cannot obtain this woman upon any other terms that I am offering her marriage?  Have I respect for her?  Do I think she will bring happiness into my house as well as pleasure to my body?  Is she suited to my brain capacity when I am not exalted by physical emotion?  Am I going to curb my selfishness and behave decently towards her?

If he cannot answer these questions satisfactorily he may know that he is undertaking a hundred-to-one chance of peace and happiness.  But if the physical desire is stronger than all these considerations, then he must know and realise that whatever happens he must never blame the woman.  He has succumbed to the most material and alas! the most hideously strong force in nature ­not because the woman tempted him, as it has been the fashion for man to say since the days of Adam ­but because there is something in himself which is so weak that it cannot listen to the promptings of the spirit when the body calls.

In each and every case it is a man’s duty to be kind and courteous to a woman who is his wife.  He has made her so by his free vows before God (because no one can be forced to the altar against his absolute will in these days), or he has made her so by vows and business agreement, according to the laws of his country, before the Registrar.  In either case he has made her his legal wife and the possible mother of his children ­units unborn who can affect the welfare of his country.  He has, then, his great duties towards her.  If she was a girl, he has taken from her that which nothing on earth can restore; he has made her into another being.  He has been instrumental in making her ­this other human soul ­accept responsibilities, and he is bound as an honourable man to school himself so as to be able to help the mutual happiness and peace of their dual existence.  And if he wishes to be obeyed, loved, and respected, he has to look to himself that he inspires obedience, love, and respect in his mate.  She will not experience these feelings to order; and fear alone, or some other and lower motive, would make her simulate them.  Man must not forget that nothing simulated can last.  Truth alone remains at the end of the year.

No marriage can be certain of continuing happy which has been entered into in the spirit of taking a lottery ticket.  But most marriages could be fairly happy if both man and woman looked the thing squarely in the face and made up their minds that they would run together in harness as two well-trained carriage horses, both knowing of the pole, both pulling at the collar and not over-straining the traces, both taking pride in their high stepping and their unity of movement.  How much more dignified than to make a pitiful exhibition of incompatibility like two wild creatures kicking and plunging, and finally upsetting the vehicle they had agreed to draw?

I would like to discuss now the problem of whether or not marriage could be made happy no matter how it starts, by using common sense, but the deep interest of the whole subject has made my pen already cover too much space and I must refrain in this chapter.

Only, men and women who read this, do not pass it by, but stop and think before you plunge, through the giving and the taking of a wedding ring, into happiness or misery.