X HISTORICAL RACES

1. In this chapter we deal with the factors bearing upon fertility and elimination in the third of the three groups described in Chapter V. In one important respect this and the following chapter are contrasted with the preceding chapters. In the latter we were dealing, not with the facts derived from the peoples whom it was our object directly to investigate, but with the facts derived from primitive races with the object of throwing light upon prehistoric races. Here we are dealing with the facts relating to the peoples whose position it is our object to consider. The setting out of the facts relating to these races presents great difficulties. The amount of information is huge, but for the most part it is far from being of a satisfactory nature, and the rapid changes which have occurred within the historical period increase the difficulties. Only a brief review of the subject, designed to illustrate the more important features, is attempted.

The races under consideration are divided into four sub-groups. Sub-group 1 includes the civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome up to the fall of the Western Empire. In these countries we have some knowledge of the progress from Neolithic culture to a culture exhibiting a far greater command over nature. From this culture is derived the later civilization of Europe, which we consider under sub-groups 3 and 4—the former beginning with Europe after the fall of the Western Empire and ending roughly about A. D. 1760, the date given by Marshall as marking the beginning of the industrial system, the latter beginning about 1760, and including all European races and their derivatives in America, Australia, and so on. Generally speaking, therefore, sub-group 1 includes the ancient empires, sub-group 3 Europe from the Roman Empire to the rise of the industrial system, and sub-group 4 the epoch of the industrial system.

There remain those races which have passed beyond the culture of the races included in the second group, but which have been 244out of the main stream of the evolution which led to the industrial evolution. In sub-group 2 are included India, China, Persia, Japan, and also the partly nomadic Arabs and certain other Asiatic peoples. In late years the customs of the races in this sub-group have been influenced by contact with Europeans; changes due to this contact will be disregarded, as were similar changes in the races belonging to the first and second groups.

In one very important respect the conditions with regard to all races in the third group differ from those in the preceding groups. Disease is a factor of the greatest importance, and we may consider in the first place the facts regarding the prevalence of disease in all groups. What little there is to be said regarding war, famine, and child mortality in all the races of this group may also be considered together. With regard to the other factors we find that in many respects the conditions in the first two sub-groups are similar and are contrasted with those in the latter two sub-groups. Therefore, after considering disease and the other factors mentioned for all groups taken together, it will be convenient to deal with the sub-groups separately, taking the ancient empires and the Asiatic peoples first, and mediaeval and modern Europe afterwards.

2. Something was said in Chapter VI with regard to the evolution of disease. It was there shown that in all probability most diseases evolved relatively late in history. The more settled conditions of the Neolithic Age may have provided the first suitable surroundings for the evolution and spread of disease. The taking of metals into use was followed by an increase in the density of population when conditions became yet more favourable. The use of metals was followed by the rise of the first civilizations. It was then that men first came to dwell in towns and cities, and it is interesting to observe that the earliest cities were very compact. Mr. Hall, speaking of Minoan civilization, says that the towns were very cramped, ‘more so than the most confined of European mediaeval cities’.^[1287] On the rise therefore of these early civilizations the conditions were strongly contrasted with those which, we imagine, must have been prevalent before, and favoured the spread of disease as it had never been favoured before. From the rise of the early civilizations until within the last hundred years, conditions 245have remained favourable. They may perhaps have been most favourable in European towns in mediaeval and later times. According to Rogers, ‘the habits of the people were favourable to pestilence. Every writer during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries who makes his comment on the customs and practices of English life, adverts to the profuseness of their diet and the extraordinarily uncleanliness of their habits and persons. The floor of an ordinary Englishman’s house, as Erasmus describes it, was inconceivably filthy, in London filthier than elsewhere, for centuries after these events. The streets and open ditches of the towns were polluted and noisome beyond measure. The Englishman disdained all the conditions of health.’^[1288]

Turning to the evidence, we find that facts are very scanty for the earliest times of this period. Such evidence as we have points to the prevalence of disease during the early civilizations. We know that pestilence swept over Egypt—the references to the subject in the Bible being familiar. But precisely what diseases were prevalent are not known; the descriptions of the symptoms are seldom sufficiently accurate even in mediaeval times to make it possible to identify the diseases.^[1289] From other evidence it appears that in any case tuberculosis, leprosy, plague, and bilharzia were common in Egypt. There is much evidence to show that most diseases only reached Europe in relatively late times. Plague, for instance, probably first reached Europe in A. D. 542. It is possible, however, that the pestilence which ravaged most of Europe between A. D. 164 and 188 was plague.^[1290] Generally speaking, the evidence points to the conclusion that many diseases came from the East, where they in all probability originated. Plague, cholera, and small-pox all seem to have had their origin in India. This conclusion is in harmony with what we know of the origin of civilization, for it is where men first came to dwell in close proximity that we should expect to find that disease originated.

With regard to mortality from disease very little accurate information is available until modern times. It is quite impossible to say, for instance, whether disease was the cause of a higher 246mortality in the Middle Ages than in the times of the Early Empires. All we know is that it was in both cases an important factor of elimination. Within the last century disease has come to be in an increasing degree under the control of scientific methods. Some diseases such as small-pox have been almost banished from this country; others, such as diphtheria, have been rendered less lethal. Of the Early Empires there are of course no exact facts. Macdonell, working on figures from the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum of the Berlin Academy, found that there was a very low expectation of life in ancient Rome as compared with the present day. Whereas in England at the age of fifteen the expectation of life for boys is forty-five years and for girls forty-eight years, in Rome it was twenty and fifteen years respectively; and again, whereas in England at the age of thirty the expectation of life for men is thirty-three, and for women thirty-six years, in Rome it was nineteen and fourteen respectively. He also found that, though the death-rate was less high, the position was much the same in the provinces of Hispania and Lusitania as in Rome. In Africa, however, the expectation of life was higher, but this may perhaps be due to the presence of a large number of colonists.^[1291] There is abundant evidence of a high rate of mortality in Europe up to the opening of the last century. We must remember, says Rogers, that ‘in the Middle Ages the risks of death from disease were far greater than they are at present, that medical skill was almost non-existent, that the conditions of life were eminently unwholesome, that the diet of the people, during fully one-half of the year, though abundant, was insalubrious’;^[1292] and in another place he says that ‘in the large towns the deaths, to judge from the return up to the eighteenth century, greatly exceeded the births’.^[1293] Theilhaber, quoting Goldstein, gives figures which corroborate this view for Basel and Frankfort.^[1294] Halley constructed one of the earliest tables of mortality for the city of Breslau for the years 1687 to 1691, and they show that the mortality was ‘considerably higher than that shown by modern statistics’.^[1295] Price constructed a table for Northampton for the years 1735 to 1780, and it shows a death-rate of 249·31 per thousand for the ages 0–2, which is far higher than at the present day.^[1296]

247Finally, though disease has nowadays very largely come under scientific control, by far the greater number of deaths is due to disease. Thus in 1917 there were 498,922 deaths among the civilian population of England and Wales. Of these, 20,480 were due to violence (not suicide), 2,495 to suicide, 2,485 to ill-defined or unknown causes, and 2,598 took place during pregnancy. Of the remainder all were due to defined diseases. Enteric fever (typhoid and paratyphoid) accounted for 977, measles for 10,538; whooping cough, 4,509; tuberculosis for 59,934; syphilis for 2,127; cancer for 41,158; pneumonia for 39,832; diphtheria and croup for 4,498; meningitis for 4,761; organic heart disease for 52,692; bronchitis for 38,907; other respiratory diseases for 7,031; diarrhoea for 13,311; nephritis and Bright’s disease for 14,298; and congenital debility for 23,850.^[1297]

3. Warfare is the second factor—disease being the first—which among these races is remarkable in that its effects are not regular. It is wholly impossible to estimate the loss of life in war until modern times. Contemporary statements nearly always hugely exaggerate the numbers engaged in battle and the number slain. ‘In the first Battle of St. Albans we have been told that five thousand persons were slain. It is almost certain that not much more than half that number were in action.’^[1298] This is probably equally true of nearly all such statements. With regard to elimination through warfare there are two facts to be borne in mind. The first is that, even if the contemporary statements were correct, war is by no means so important a factor as it seems at first sight. A practice which resulted in the conscious limitation of each family by one child would have greater results over a period of years than there is ever claimed as the direct result of warfare in reducing numbers over a similar period. The second is that the indirect elimination following upon warfare is of far greater importance than the direct elimination. Famine and disease following warfare were until recent times responsible for many more deaths than warfare itself. When we are told that during the Thirty Years’ War the population of Würtemberg was reduced from 500,000 to 46,000,^[1299] it has to be remembered that disease and famine played a greater part than loss of life in battle. Further, when the direct effects of warfare as a whole 248are contrasted with those of disease, it is apparent that they are relatively insignificant. Elimination from disease, though irregular, is always in progress within this period; there are lengthy epochs when there is little or no loss through war. Again, the great epidemics are far more destructive of life than the great wars; Hecker, for instance, after a lengthy examination of the various accounts, came to the conclusion that about a quarter of the inhabitants of Europe perished during the Black Death.^[1300]

The nature which warfare assumed in this period is obviously connected with the rise and consolidation of large states. Warfare becomes a matter of policy; it is no longer a cause of a regular degree of elimination. There is among the races under review in this chapter every degree between the kind of warfare typical of the races previously reviewed and that typical of this period. The nomadic races of Asia have at least until recent times maintained a form of regular warfare. Vambéry states that there is ‘inveterate and irreconcilable enmity’ between two tribes of Turkomans.^[1301] We are told that among such a primitive people as the Nagas the tribes were formerly in a state of constant hostility.^[1302] Among these people also head hunting was formerly common and the victims sometimes included women.^[1303] ‘One individual showed Mr. Carnegie his apron which recorded the deaths of twenty-five individuals—men, women and children—slain by his own hand.’^[1304] Generally speaking, however, we have in this period to think of warfare as typically of a different nature to that which we have noticed before, but whether it on the whole accounts directly for a higher degree of elimination, it is not possible to say.

The features of warfare which are of importance here are its relatively slight effect in producing elimination, its irregular action, and its important consequences in bringing about disease and famine. With disease we have already dealt. Famine appears here for the first time among the more important factors of elimination, and its appearance is obviously connected with the higher organization of society which, if broken down, as by warfare, may give rise to famine.^[1305] Social organization may be 249broken down by other causes than war, as by some failure in government. Famine may also result from exceptionally bad weather in any period; but it would seem that when a certain stage of organization has been reached the danger is greater than before or afterwards. There were great famines in England in the years 1194 to 1196, 1257 to 1259, and 1315 to 1316, since when famines have been unknown. These famines were all connected with bad weather, but the fact that they have not occurred since is to be attributed rather to superior social organization and increasing knowledge than to better climatic conditions. The sudden and prolonged changes of climate which occur in certain places, as for instance in Peninsular India, tax the resources even of modern knowledge and skill. In the case of famine, more so even than in the case of warfare, the loss of life is apt to be overestimated. Famine somehow strikes the imagination and gives it a prominence in history which it does not deserve. It is in reality a minor factor.

Before leaving the subject of warfare, it is interesting to note, in view of what will be said later regarding the influence of Christian teaching in assisting to put a stop to abortion and infanticide, that the early Church was also opposed to warfare. According to Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Lactantius, all warfare was unlawful for the converted. Under Domitian a Christian soldier who refused to fight was executed. There was a controversy between Celsus and Origen on this matter. The view of the latter was that the prayers of Christians were more effective than their swords. This attitude, however, was soon abandoned, and by the time of Constantine the army was largely Christian.^[1306]

4. In the groups already discussed we have found child mortality to be an important factor. We traced it to certain factors such as carelessness, ignorance, and practices such as bathing new-born babies in cold water. Within the historical period child mortality also plays an important part. Though there is little or no evidence of the practice of such customs as those referred to, ignorance and carelessness are familiar enough among the less educated classes at the present day, and in addition disease exacts a very heavy toll of infant life. In fact, whereas among primitive races the actual cause of the death of children appears 250generally to be exposure or debility following on the results of ignorant and careless treatment, among the races of this group the actual cause of death is usually disease to which children have been more or less predisposed by the treatment they have received.

There is little exact evidence as to the conditions among the historical races, but the general impression gained from the literary evidence is that infant mortality was high. The high rate of child mortality among Asiatic races is well known. In the period 1902 to 1911 the average deaths of children for one thousand births was in the United Provinces 352, in Bombay 320, in Burma 332, and in the Punjab 306.^[1307] Referring to these figures, Wattal comments on the ‘extremely unsanitary conditions of child-birth and the appalling ignorance prevalent on the subject’.^[1308] With regard to ignorance it is everywhere the same story. Of the modern Egyptians we are told that ‘the children are foul in the eyes, and are allowed to munch such indigestible dainties as beans and bread as soon as they have teeth with which to bite, while the mother protests to the lady doctor that nothing but milk has ever passed the child’s lips, though its little hand may actually be holding a hunch of raw potato’.^[1309]

Of the Middle Ages again there is no exact evidence, but all we know points to a very high child mortality. Some figures for the eighteenth century from the country have been quoted and doubtless there was a considerably higher death-rate in the towns.^[1310] From the general conditions and from the prevalence of disease it is obvious that it could not have been otherwise.

Within the last century there has been in most European countries a considerable decrease in child mortality. The degree of mortality varies greatly from country to country. For the same period as that for which the Indian figures were given the figures are for England and Wales 127·3, France 132·4, Germany 186·6, Hungary 207·6. New Zealand 64·4, Sweden 84·4, Australia 87·5, and Scotland 116·1.^[1311] Some further reference to this subject and particularly to the differences between the various countries will be made in Chapter XI.

5. With this reference to the importance of disease, war, 251famine, and child mortality throughout the historical period we may pass to the consideration of the remaining factors, dealing first with the ancient empires and Asiatic peoples and afterwards with Europe from the fall of the Roman Empire. We shall find that considerable differences exist regarding the importance of the various factors as between these two divisions. Roughly speaking, with the exception of the importance of disease, conditions in the ancient empires and in Asiatic countries are similar to those in previous groups. In Europe after the introduction of Christianity we shall find that certain factors become of little or no importance, whereas others appear for the first time, and finally in the modern period we shall discover further changes. It is therefore convenient to consider the conditions in the first two sub-groups taken together and afterwards those in the latter two sub-groups.

All the evidence goes to show that celibacy and postponement of marriage were very rare in the ancient empires and are very rare among Asiatic peoples. The only instances to the contrary are such cases as those of the later days of the Roman Empire; such cases are wholly exceptional and what there is to be said about them will be deferred to the next chapter. Generally speaking, every one married at or soon after the age of puberty. In Greece ‘in various places criminal proceedings might be taken against celibates’.^[1312] Though the figures on which he worked were small, Macdonell found that marriages in Rome took place between the ages of ten and twenty.^[1313] In all these countries we find examples of religious celibacy. In Egypt^[1314] and Chaldea^[1315] there were celibates of both sexes for religious reasons, in Rome there were vestal virgins, in Persia Sun Priestesses who did not marry, and in India and Tibet there are similar examples.^[1316] But unlike Christian celibacy, these instances of celibacy were of no importance whatever as regards the question of numbers. The religious celibates never formed more than an insignificant fraction of the whole population. In general, as we shall see later, marriage was strongly encouraged by religions other than Christianity for the mass of mankind. The one other important exception would seem to be Buddhism, which not only forbade marriage to the sacerdotal caste, 252but discouraged marriage among all those who would attain to wisdom. It would appear, however, that celibacy, though possibly widespread in the earlier days of Buddhism, soon ceased to be practised except by a small proportion of the adherents of Buddha. ‘It is said that in Nepal, under the modern Gurkha rule, the celibate occupies a lower position than the married monk, to whom the services in the temples are committed. It is said, too, that the Lamas of Sikkim and other northern countries constantly have children living with them, though they do not admit them to be their own. Yet for all that celibacy is the rule, and, nominally at any rate, the great majority of Lamistic monks in Western Asia are unmarried coenobites, who live together in monasteries.’^[1317]

Much evidence could be given as to the view taken of celibacy and of the duty of marrying early. ‘The Oriental’, says Polak, ‘does not understand how any one can remain a celibate who has the chance to marry.’^[1318] ‘Le célibat’, says Fustel de Coulanges, ‘devait être à la fois une impiété grave et un malheur; une impiété, parce que le célibataire mettait en péril le bonheur des mânes de sa famille; un malheur, parce qu’il ne devait reçevoir lui-même aucun culte après sa mort et ne devait pas connaître ce qui réjouit les mânes. C’était à la fois pour lui et pour ces ancêtres une sorte de damnation.’^[1319] Doughty describes the reasons for the absence of celibacy among the Arabs.^[1320] The same conditions are found in China.^[1321] Of Corea, Ross says ‘the male human being who is never married is never called a “man”, whatever his age, but goes by the name of “yataw”, a name given by the Chinese to unmarriageable young girls, and the man of thirteen or fourteen has a perfect right to strike, abuse, order about the “yatow” of thirty who dares not so much as open his lips to complain’.^[1322] ‘Among natives of India’, says Kerr, ‘it is considered an indispensable duty to enter into the marriage state.’^[1323] ‘A Hindoo male’, according to Wattal, ‘must marry and beget children—son, if you please—to perform his funeral rites lest his spirit wander uneasily in the waste places of the earth. The very name of son, “Putra”, means one who saves his father’s soul from the hell called “Puta”. A Hindoo maiden unmarried at puberty 253is a source of social obloquy to her family and of damnation to her ancestors. Among the Mohammedans, who are not handicapped by such penalties, the marriage state is equally common, partly owing to Hindoo example, and partly to the general conditions of life in primitive society where a wife is almost a necessity both as a domestic drudge and as a helpmate in field work.’^[1324]

Early marriage is considered to be a duty for all. Westermarck quotes Mohammed as saying: ‘whenever a servant of God marries verily he perfects half his religion’.^[1325] According to the Laws of Manu it is a religious duty incumbent upon all.^[1326] In the Vedic Age marriage was much encouraged and offspring greatly desired.^[1327] Confucianism and Zoroastrianism similarly encouraged marriage. ‘A youth’, says Dubois, speaking of India, ‘who was not married before he was eighteen was considered by them to be sinning against the command of the Creator, which says “Increase and Multiply”.’^[1328] ‘Almost all Chinese,’ says Gray, ‘robust or infirm, well formed or deformed, are called upon by their parents to marry so soon as they have attained the age of puberty.’^[1329] ‘Marriage and the upbringing of offspring became a duty incumbent upon every Chinese who is normally fit for marriage’,^[1330] say two modern Chinese authors. Similar statements are to be found regarding Burma,^[1331] Upper Siam,^[1332] Persia,^[1333] the Mongols,^[1334] and the Kalmucks.^[1335]

6. Marriage before the age of puberty is not uncommon and is very prevalent in India. It is doubtful how far intercourse takes place before maturity. In the North-West Provinces of India it is stated that in most cases there is no cohabitation before puberty.^[1336] This statement is confirmed by Risley; he further states that in Bengal cohabitation begins at once.^[1337] In India in 1901, 243,500 girls were married under the age of five, 2,030,000 between the ages of five and ten, and 6,585,000 between the ages of ten and fifteen.^[1338] Eram, speaking generally of the East, states that pre-puberty marriages are not rare.^[1339] We hear that 10 per cent. of 254the Kirghiz marry before the beginning of menstruation.^[1340] Among the Annamites^[1341] and the Todas^[1342] intercourse sometimes occurs before puberty. Macdonell’s figures for Rome, already referred to, show that marriage must sometimes have taken place before puberty.

7. The ancient Egyptians suckled their children for two or three years.^[1343] The suckling period is prolonged in Arabia.^[1344] In the Koran mothers are recommended to suckle for two years.^[1345] Among Asiatic races lactation is usually extended for a considerable length of time. The Japanese sometimes do not wean their children until the fourth year.^[1346] The poorer classes in Persia suckle until the third year.^[1347] In Upper Siam ‘infants are generally suckled three years’.^[1348] In Turkey lactation is also prolonged.^[1349] Generally speaking, the evidence is to the effect that the suckling period is always prolonged—the average being perhaps somewhere about two to three years.

8. In sub-group 1 many examples are found of restraint from sexual intercourse being imposed upon married persons at certain seasons. Examples from Egypt are given by Müller.^[1350] According to the Laws of Manu separation from the wife was obligatory at certain periods—for instance, at new and full moon and on certain days of the month.^[1351] Similar conditions existed in Persia.^[1352] Such restrictions, however, are not of much importance. Of prolonged abstention from intercourse there is little evidence. In China, according to Gray, ‘a husband is not expected to cohabit with his wife after she has conceived, nor after the child is born, during the whole period that it is being nourished at the mother’s breast. Any violation of this rule is supposed not only to cause the child to become sickly but to provoke the displeasure of the ancestors and to bring misfortune upon all members of the family. Wealthy Chinese are generally very careful in the practice of such abstention.’^[1353] It is quite clear, however, from what we know of Chinese fertility that this custom is not widely practised among the people as a whole. Smith speaks of ‘the objection of the Arabs to intercourse 255with a nursing mother which was supposed to hurt the suckling’.^[1354] In Turkey also there is said to be no intercourse during lactation.^[1355] There are thus indications of the practice of this important custom, and it may be that it existed in such a degree as to have exerted considerable influence.^[1356]

9. There is a general impression that the knowledge of contraceptive methods has only been acquired in modern times. This, however, is not correct. We have already seen that there is evidence of their use in the second group. In the third group there is evidence of the knowledge of certain methods in early times. Theilhaber gives some particulars regarding their employment among the Jews, German tribes, Arabs, the Franks before their conversion to Christianity, the Greeks, and the Romans.^[1357] Methods are employed at the present day in China^[1358] and in India,^[1359] though there is some doubt as to how far they are effective. According to Wattal there is some statistical evidence from India which may be interpreted either as a result of such practices or as a result of abstention from intercourse.^[1360] There is not sufficient evidence to allow of any exact estimate being made of the extent of these practices. Generally speaking, however, it would appear that it is not until we arrive at the latest period of human history that we find these practices to be of considerable importance.

10. With regard to the size of families in early times there is little exact evidence. Among Asiatic peoples at the present day we have some evidence of the degree of fertility, whereas hitherto the evidence has been only that of the number of children surviving after infanticide and infant mortality had taken their toll. This evidence from the Asiatic races we may now turn to discuss, but we may note before doing so that the evidence for the remaining races of the first sub-group gives a rather different impression than that which we obtain when studying primitive races; upon the whole we get the impression that families were at least not so markedly small as among primitive races.^[1361]

Fertility is often said to be higher in the East than in Europe. So far as India is concerned this is not so. The error has arisen because attention has been paid to the crude birth-rate. When 256the crude birth-rate is corrected for the number of married females of reproductive age, then the true birth-rate is found to be lower than in Europe. ‘The total number of births registered in England and Wales during the year 1911 was 881,138, which when calculated on the total population gives a crude birth-rate of 24·4 per thousand. The total number of births registered in India during the same year was 9,209,703, which when calculated on the total population gives a crude birth-rate of 38·59 per thousand. It would seem therefore that the fertility in India is higher than in England. But this is not so. The total number of females of reproductive age (15 to 45) in England and Wales at the census of 1911 was 8,988,745 and if we calculate the births per thousand of such females the figure stands at 98. The total number of females of those ages in India in 1911 was 71,535,861 and the corresponding Indian figure is 128. If, however, we calculate the births on the number of married females of reproductive ages the Indian figure stands at 160 while the English figure is 196.’^[1362]

The fertility in other Asiatic countries is often said to be very high; it is asserted to approach 50 per 1,000 in China. Exact figures are, however, lacking. There is no doubt that the corrected birth-rate would be much less. Among nomadic people the evidence is to the effect that the number of children is small, and this is probably connected with the practice of abortion, which is common for instance among the Arabs.

11. We have now to give some account of the factors which have a bearing upon elimination in the third group. Of these the first is abortion. Classical literature is full of references to the subject. Plato and Aristotle both permitted abortion. ‘No law in Greece or in the Roman republic or during the greater part of the Empire condemned it.’^[1363] ‘A long chain of writers both pagan and Christian represent the practice as avowed and almost universal. They describe it as resulting, not simply from licentiousness or from poverty, but even from so slight a motive as vanity which made mothers shrink from the disfigurement of child-birth. They speak of a mother who had never destroyed her offspring as deserving of signal praise and they assure us that the frequency of the crime was such that it gave rise to a regular profession.’^[1364] 257The practice was more common in Rome than in Greece.^[1365] It was deplored, nevertheless, by many authors including Ovid, Juvenal, and Seneca. Some details of the methods employed are given by Theilhaber.^[1366]

In sub-group 2 we find the practice to be widespread. Eram comments upon its frequency throughout the East.^[1367] Wilkins says that ‘the crime of procuring abortion is one of the commonest in India’, and quotes Dr. Chevers as saying that abortion is ‘an act of almost daily commission’ and has become ‘a trade among certain of the lower midwives’. It is especially common in Bengal—perhaps 10,000 being destroyed monthly.^[1368] According to Matignon, in China abortion is legal and usual during the three-year suckling period.^[1369] It is also common in Annam,^[1370] in Japan,^[1371] Persia,^[1372] and Turkey.^[1373] Infanticide was condemned by Mohammed but not abortion, which is frequent among the Arabs.^[1374] In Turkey it is very common;^[1375] it is said to be brought about after the second birth if the husband consents.^[1376] The fact that in later times we hear of enactments against abortion among the Burgundians, Ripuarians, Visigoths, Bavarians, Saxons, Frisians, and Lombards seems to point to the conclusion that the practice was common before their conversion to Christianity.^[1377]

12. There is some reason for believing that infanticide was common among the Egyptians at the time of Moses.^[1378] ‘The ancient Jews seem to have themselves practised infanticide, for as late as the time of Isaiah they are reproached with the habit of “slaying the children in the valleys under the clefts of the rocks”. In 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 and xxxiii. 6 the same statement is made. It is true that these cases may have partaken of the nature of human sacrifices rather than of ordinary infanticide, but the two generally prevailed together, and we have express testimony that both of them existed at that time among all the 258surrounding nations, Phoenicians, Aramaeans, Syrians, and Babylonians as well as among their kindred the Carthaginians.’^[1379]

Glotz has an interesting chapter on the subject of infanticide in Greece. In prehistoric times in Greece the head of the family could, as among all people of ‘Aryan origin’, dispose of his children as he wished.^[1380] After examining the myths it is clear, according to Glotz, that infanticide was a daily occurrence during the period at which myths were being formed.^[1381] In historical times it was universal. Most often infanticide was ordered by the father, who generally on the fifth, sometimes on the seventh or tenth, day after the birth publicly proclaimed whether he would keep the child or not.^[1382] If he decided not to keep the child, it was exposed, and there is reason to think that most of the exposed children died.^[1383] Infanticide was enjoined by the ideal legislation of Plato and Aristotle and by the actual legislation of Lycurgus and Solon. Summing up his examination of this subject Glotz says: ‘L’opinion de la Grèce ancienne est donc à peu près unanime. Reçue dans la vie privée, cette pratique a été admise en droit par les législatures et fondées en raison par les maîtres de la pensée.’^[1384]

In very early times infanticide was general in Rome. Later the right of the father to destroy his children was somewhat restricted. ‘The power of life and death, which in Rome was originally conceded to the father over his children, would appear to involve an unlimited permission of infanticide; but a very old law, popularly ascribed to Romulus, in this respect restricted the parental rights, enjoining the father to bring up all his male children, and at least his eldest female child, forbidding him to destroy any well-formed child till it had completed its third year, when the affections of the parents might be supposed to be developed, but permitting the exposition of deformed or maimed children with the consent of their five nearest relations.’^[1385] There is evidence to show that this permission was frequently utilized. The plots of Plautus and Terence sometimes turn upon the reappearance of children supposed to have been destroyed. ‘Pliny says that infanticide is really a lamentable necessity “seeing that the fertility of some women is so over-abundant in 259children that it needs some such practice to counterbalance it” while ... Seneca saw nothing reprehensible in it.’^[1386] Suetonius has several allusions to the matter which prove that infanticide was accepted by the Romans in a very matter-of-fact spirit. For instance, in describing the public grief for the death of Germanicus, he mentions that many women exposed their infants. The opening of the fourteenth episode of the Golden Ass of Apuleius describes how a husband before going forth on a journey directed his young wife that the coming babe if a girl was to be destroyed; the whole being related as a perfectly natural and common occurrence.^[1387]

Among the Arabs it was very prevalent before the time of Mohammed, by whom it was forbidden. Instances are given by Smith to show the extent of the practice.^[1388] Discussing the matter in another place Smith says that Wilken ‘doubts whether among the Arabs the practice was carried to such an extent as to do more than keep the sexes balanced—men being more exposed than women to violent deaths; but there is evidence that, at any rate in some places and at some times, there was a strong pressure of public opinion against bearing any daughter, even though she were the only child of her parents. If we take along with this the fact that wealthy and powerful men had often several wives, there can, I think, be no question that, at least in some parts of the country, wives must have been so scarce that the mass of the tribesmen must have been driven to practise polyandry.’^[1389] The evidence from China is somewhat conflicting; this is probably to be accounted for by the variations in habits in different parts of the country. Norman has collected evidence to show its wide extent. ‘The testimony’, he says, ‘of a Chinese teacher is as follows: “Infanticide is very common among the poor, and even people in pretty easy circumstances. There is hardly a family in which at least one child has not been destroyed, and in some families four or five are disposed of.”... Another man, who is now a member of the Christian Church, says that in his village there is hardly a family that has not destroyed two or three children.... A lady contributor to the North China Daily 260News furnished the following statistics: “I find that 160 Chinese women, all over 50 years of age, had borne 631 sons and 538 daughters. Of the sons 366 or nearly 60 per cent. had lived more than 10 years; while of the daughters only 205 or 38 per cent. had lived 10 years. The 160 women had, according to their own statement, destroyed 158 of their daughters; but none had ever destroyed a boy. As only four women reared more than three girls, the probability is that the infanticides confessed to are considerably below the truth. I have occasionally been told by a woman that she had forgotten just how many girls she had had more than she wanted. The greatest number of infanticides confessed to by any one woman is eleven.”’^[1390] Gray states that infanticide prevails to a huge extent and gives an example of a young husband who had had three sons and four daughters. Of the latter three had been killed.^[1391] According to Douglas the practice prevails among the poorer classes ‘to an alarming extent’.^[1392] Abeel speaks of infanticide in China as ‘very common’.^[1393] ‘In Pekin,’ he says, ‘after deducting more than one-half for the natural deaths the number of exposed children is, according to Barrow, about 4,000 a year.... In some Provinces not one in three is suffered to live.’^[1394] The practice is said to be specially prevalent in South China.^[1395] Milne says that in Canton ‘infanticide was rare. Dr. Williams, however, states that though the practice is rare in Canton it is common in Amoy. He thinks that in general the proportion of children killed is not great, but mentions two provinces wherein the practice prevails to an atrocious extent, twenty to thirty per cent. of the female children, therefore, ten to fifteen per cent. of the total number of infants born, being put to death.’^[1396] The important fact, upon which we shall comment in the next chapter, seems to be that in China infanticide is practised not so much as a regular habit as in times of distress. Moule thinks that infanticide is connected with times of want, and Douglas that it is in general only committed by the poorer classes in times of distress. Norman emphasizes the fact that it is chiefly committed by the poorer classes. Giles denies its existence altogether.^[1397] It is therefore of particular interest to 261find two modern Chinese authors speaking as follows. ‘One must not assume that such a custom is prevalent; flagrant and sometimes dramatic accounts, of which we have heard so much, only hold true in certain districts and at times of famine.’^[1398] According to Faulds infanticide was formerly common in Japan.^[1399]

It is said that infanticide was formerly characteristic of five-sixths of British India.^[1400] Recently it was common in Central India, Rajputana, Cutch Bhooj, Agra Province, Khondistan, among the Jats, and in the Punjab generally.^[1401] The Mysore census for 1852 showed that in a population of 3,410,382 there was a 10 per cent. excess of males in the adult population in spite of a 16 per cent. excess of female births.^[1402] It is stated to exist among the Nagas^[1403] though the evidence is conflicting.^[1404] It was formerly ‘very common all over the Jeypore country’.^[1405] It was especially prevalent among the Khond people,^[1406] where ‘it was expressly sanctioned and promoted by their religious doctrine’.^[1407] It was also common among the Todas.^[1408] ‘Lieut.-General Walker estimated that about 33,000 female children were annually put to death in Cutch and Gujerat, a rate amounting to about one-fourth of the total births and therefore to about half of the girls born. Watson and Kaye assert that “no criminality either by law or usage was ever attached among the Rajputs to infanticide. The child was smothered in milk or else opium was smeared upon the mother’s breasts in quantities sufficient to cause immediate death.” The Encyclopaedia of India asserts that in one of the districts of this Province, while there were 82,400 boys, there were only 35,137 girls at the 1874 enumeration, a discrepancy which clearly showed that more than one-half of the girls had been destroyed.’^[1409]

It is worthy of note that in addition to infanticide ‘the wilful neglect of female children operates destructively in every town and village throughout the length and breadth of India’.^[1410] This 262is especially noticeable where in recent days infanticide has much diminished. Thus in Rajputana girls are allowed to die when in the case of a boy medical aid would be summoned.^[1411]

Infanticide was extensively practised among the Teutonic tribes before their conversion to Christianity.^[1412] The well-known statement of Tacitus that the Germans did not practise infanticide is certainly erroneous. Lecky suggests that the whole passage is to be taken rather as an indirect way of scolding his own people than as a sober statement of fact about another. ‘Guizot regards the picture which Tacitus draws as being analogous to the portrait Fenimore Cooper gives of the Red Indians.’^[1413] There is ample evidence that the practice was common. ‘Grimm declares that “all the Teutonic Sagas are full of the exposure of children, and there can be no doubt that in the early days of heathenism it was lawful”. Müller says that all the Teutonic races in early times had the right of exposing their children, but in the course of centuries it came to be exercised only by the parent.... It is related that, when in A. D. 1000 the Norsemen of Iceland were converted to Christianity, they stipulated that the right of slaying their infants should not be removed.’^[1414] There is evidence from graves that infanticide was practised in Neolithic times in England.^[1415] It is thus of particular interest to notice that, where we can catch sight of peoples emerging out of the prehistoric period, we find infanticide established as a practice; the conclusions derived from the direct evidence of the peoples of this group are thus linked on to the conclusion to which in the last chapter we came from indirect evidence.^[1416]

13. Turning to sub-groups three and four, disease, war, famine, and child mortality have already been dealt with. The remaining factors are those in respect of which there is a contrast between these sub-groups and those just considered. Furthermore, as 263regards these factors there are certain important differences as between what we may call mediaeval and modern races.

Of pre-puberty intercourse there is no evidence. Among modern races it is certainly negligible. If it occurred at all in the mediaeval period it was very uncommon, and we may therefore regard this factor as of no account. Hitherto we have found that, though far from being universal, it is a fairly common practice. Its disappearance thus makes one distinction between these races and those which we have previously studied.

The length of the suckling period marks a similar distinction. It is not possible to lay down any hard and fast distinction; even at the present day in certain country districts it is prolonged, as, for instance, in Hungary for several years according to Gönezi.^[1417] Generally speaking, however, the tendency has been for a reduction to the conditions which now rule in Western Europe.

14. A far more remarkable difference between these races and those hitherto considered is provided by the conditions regarding celibacy and the postponement of marriage. Hitherto we have found that, with the exception of a very few individuals who chiefly for religious reasons did not marry, all women, if indeed not married before puberty, got married soon after. Such postponement of marriage as occurred was confined to men, and therefore neither celibacy nor postponement had any effect upon numbers. At this point we come upon wholly new conditions.

The views of St. Paul with regard to marriage are well known and the attitude of all early Christians authors is similar though usually more pronounced. If marriage was tolerable, virginity was in any case preferable. ‘For why’, says Tertullian, ‘should we long to bear children, whom, when we have them, we desire to send before us ... ourselves also longing to be removed from this most wicked world.... Therefore whether marriage be for the sake of the flesh, or of the world or of having descendants, not one of these necessities belongeth to the servants of God.’^[1418] Such a passage as this can be paralleled in the works of almost any of the Fathers. They return to the subject over and over again. St. Augustine did not avoid the practical difficulty. ‘But I am aware’, he says, ‘of some that murmur. What, say they, if all men should abstain from sexual intercourse, whence will the 264human race exist? Would that all would thus; ... much more speedily would the City of God be filled and the end of the world hastened.’^[1419] There are many decrees of the early Council regarding celibacy. It was first enjoined by the Popes in 385.^[1420] Gregory VII was very zealous on behalf of celibacy, and owing to his efforts it became very general in Europe in the eleventh century though it was not rigidly enforced until the thirteenth century among the clergy.^[1421] Much earlier, however, in certain countries celibacy had come, under the influence of Christian teaching, to be of importance. It was initiated by Paul the Theban and St. Antony after the Decian persecution^[1422] and according to Schönberg there were at one time in a single diocese in Egypt 20,000 men and 10,000 women celibates.^[1423] It was felt to be necessary to take steps to limit the extent of the practice, and in 381 the Council of Saragossa forbade virgins to take the veil unless over forty years of age.^[1424] Thus under the influence of Christianity celibacy became for the first time in human history a factor of importance. That the celibate is to be preferred to the married state is emphasized by the Council of Trent.^[1425]

Also in this period for the first time in the history of the world postponement of marriage became of importance. The evidence as to the age at marriage is unfortunately far from exact. There is, however, a very large amount of evidence which shows that, at least in the society typical of most European countries from the tenth century onwards, marriage was, except among the privileged classes, always somewhat, and often very long, postponed both for men and women, though more for the former than the latter. This postponement was brought about by the pressure of social conditions, customs, and laws. To these conditions and customs it will be necessary to refer in the next chapter, and it will suffice to say here that, generally speaking, in the country there was a limited number of households and that, until death made vacancies, there was no house for those wishing to marry, who in consequence had to wait, and that in the towns guild restrictions bound apprentices for a large number of years during 265which they might not marry, and that at many times in many places the poor were prohibited from marrying.

There is very little statistical evidence. The matter has been investigated by Rubin, who worked with the Danish figures for the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. ‘It was the universal rule’, he says, ‘that as soon as the obstacles ... were surmounted, every one proceeded to get married.’^[1426] Apart, therefore, from religious celibacy, there was no voluntary celibacy such as we find at the present day. But these obstacles in the case of the dependent class were serious, and marriage was long postponed by men in this class, though postponed for a shorter time by women than by men. ‘Even though the social and economic structure of the community of old restrained one section of the population—the dependent section—from marriage, the other part of the population, the independent section, married far earlier than nowadays. There was perhaps ... some holding back in certain circles of the best society. But for ordinary independent people marriage at an early age was a matter of course. Those who could marry early, then, did so. But those who were unable to marry till late in life—when they no longer held the position of journeymen, labourer, &c.—yet married.’^[1427] With regard to women there was ‘a state of affairs resembling that found in the case of men, a compulsory condition of celibacy for certain sections of the population.... In certain classes of the population there were a good many more unmarried women at something over twenty years of age than there are now.’^[1428] Summing up his conclusions the same author says ‘in spite of the fact that in the independent section of the community marriage took place, as a rule, at an earlier age in the eighteenth century than it does now, the average age of marriage was yet higher at that time, because the more numerous dependent class married later’, and adds that ‘there must have been a difference between the age of the bride and bridegroom considerably greater than in the marriages of our time’.^[1429]

The state of things indicated above is that typical of mediaeval Europe and lasted up to the industrial revolution. It is not to be supposed that there was any abrupt change from the conditions prevalent before; on the contrary the conditions described 266developed slowly as European mediaeval society assumed its typical aspect. The growth of these conditions is connected with the disappearance of abortion and infanticide, and, as we shall see; there is evidence that there was a lengthy period during which these customs continued to be practised after the introduction of Christianity.

The transition from the conditions of what we have called the mediaeval period to those of the modern period was relatively sudden. The economic changes connected with the rise of the industrial system in the latter half of the eighteenth century did away with the obstacles to marriage which have been mentioned. As a result the average age at marriage was lowered. In England between 1867 and 1888 it was for men twenty-six and for women twenty-four. The question of the age at marriage in the modern period need not detain us because it was not the variations in that factor which have controlled numbers. There have been variations, but these variations have been compensated for by other factors.

Celibacy for religious reasons, which at certain times and places was of great importance in the mediaeval period, has ceased to be of any importance in the modern period. On the other hand, for the first time in history voluntary celibacy on grounds other than religious has come to be of importance. ‘In the course of this century [nineteenth century] Wappaus found that in Saxony 14·6 of the unmarried adult population died single; in Sweden 14·9 per cent., in the Netherlands 14·2 per cent., and in France 20·6 per cent.’^[1430] The returns of the thirteenth United States^[1431] Census showed that of the females 35–44 years of age 10 per cent. were single.

In this connexion there is another matter which may be mentioned here. It will be referred to in detail later on. Whereas in the mediaeval period the independent class married early and the dependent class considerably later, in the modern period this has been reversed. It is now the wage-earning class which marries earlier than the independent class.

15. Contraceptive methods were known in the mediaeval period,^[1432] but there is no evidence that either these practices or restraint from intercourse between married persons were of any importance. According to Rubin, ‘so far as the eighteenth century ... is 267concerned, it may be taken as a fact that in the main the limit of fertility of marriage was set by nature alone.’^[1433] This applies equally to the whole of the period. In this respect, therefore, this period resembles those which preceded it.

Whatever effects may have to be attributed to these factors in the former periods, it is within the modern period that they first become of primary importance. Something was said in the First Chapter as to the history of the so-called Neomalthusian propaganda, and it was pointed out that it began relatively early in the century. It is obviously very difficult to obtain any definite facts regarding the extent of these practices, but a very great body of evidence points to the conclusion that, not only have these practices come to be of great importance, but also that it is by means of variation in their use, together with deliberate restraint from intercourse between married persons, by which population has come to be regulated.

With regard to definite evidence the results of an inquiry carried out by the National Birth-Rate Commission may be quoted. Of 481 schedules issued, 366 gave definite replies regarding the limitation of births. In 288 cases the marriages were specifically stated to be limited, and in 203 of these 288 cases there were further particulars. In 105 cases (51·7 per cent.) limitation appears to have been due merely to restriction of intercourse to periods when conception was believed to be unlikely or to abstention from intercourse. There were 98 cases in which contraceptive methods were apparently employed.^[1434]

16. We now come to a consideration of the three practices which we found to be of such importance in the first two groups. Of prolonged restraint from intercourse imposed as a social custom there is no trace. It was certainly not characteristic of the mediaeval period; it is possible that in the earlier portion of the period, of which in these respects we have little definite knowledge, the practice may have been continued from the times previous to conversion to Christianity, just as we shall find that abortion and infanticide were continued in some cases. It is important also to notice that abortion and infanticide, at least in the form of well-recognized social customs, are also absent. For the first time in history none of these practices are in common use. We may shortly consider how they came to disappear.

268‘Abortion’, says Lecky, ‘was probably regarded by the average Roman of the later days of Paganism much as an Englishman in the last century regarded convivial excess, as certainly wrong, but so venial as scarcely to deserve censure. The language of the Christians from the very beginning was widely different. With unswerving consistency and with the strongest emphasis, they denounced the practice, not simply as inhuman, but as definitely murder.’^[1435] The evidence goes to show that the Christian objection to abortion was the chief factor in bringing this practice into discredit. The Christian attitude was due to the belief that children in the womb possessed souls. St. Clement of Alexandria, for instance, was of opinion that such children had guardian angels. It is probable that abortion was not stamped out altogether; it may have continued to some extent throughout the whole mediaeval period; it is known to be practised to a considerable extent among the less educated classes in the more advanced countries at the present day.^[1436] Figures have been given which show that abortion is at the present day a considerable factor in France. But it is clear that from being a factor of the first importance it has come to be altogether a secondary factor and what is more to be regarded definitely as criminal.

The first protest against infanticide was made by Philo in the first century A. D.^[1437] The Christians opposed infanticide as they did abortion, but it does not appear that Christian influence played as large a part in putting down this practice as it did in the case of abortion. Speaking of the later days of the Empire, Lecky says that ‘the legislators then absolutely condemned it and it was indirectly discouraged by laws which accorded special privileges to the fathers of many children.... Pagan and Christian authorities are united in speaking of infanticide as a crying vice of the Empire and Tertullian observed that no laws were more easily or constantly evaded than those which condemned it. A broad distinction was popularly drawn between infanticide and exposition. The latter, though probably condemned, was certainly not punished by law; it was practised on a gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference, and, at least in the case of destitute parents, considered 269a very venial offence.’^[1438] Finally in 374 Valentinian made all infanticide a capital offence and particularly enjoined the punishment of exposition. There is much evidence to show that many centuries elapsed before the practice was finally suppressed in Europe. It was apparently common in France up to the time of Charlemagne, who made it a capital offence. A law of the Spanish Visigoths in the seventh century punished both abortion and infanticide with death.^[1439]

The disappearance of both these practices is connected with the evolution of the typical conditions of mediaeval society which are marked, as we saw, by postponement of marriage and religious celibacy. As the former went out the latter came in, and we shall find that numbers came to be regulated by the peculiar methods of the latter period as they had previously been regulated by those of the former.

17. Mention may perhaps be made of the influence of venereal disease. Gonorrhoea has long been prevalent; there is some reason to think that it was known in Assyria. Syphilis is of more recent introduction into Europe and may be of more recent evolution. Though syphilis is a frequent cause of abortions, still-births, and infant mortality, it does not produce sterility. The presence of gonorrhoea tends to prevent conception in women and, if not cured within a certain time, it may cause permanent sterility. A considerable proportion of the sterile marriages at the present day may, as indicated in the Fourth Chapter, be due to gonorrhoea. Though no great influence is to be attributed to venereal diseases when the whole question is broadly viewed, it may be remembered that within the third period they have been prevalent and thus further distinguish that period from the first two periods.^[1440]

270